African-American Asphyxiated by Police in Minneapolis - Page 168 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15107958
@wat0n

1. I made a mistake when I claimed that you were interested in gradually decreasing police brutality and violence. Now it appears that you do not care about reducing police brutality and killings at all. That is the whole goal of the enterprise.

2. Civil laws are not criminal laws. According to the laws surrounding the killing (which are criminal laws) of another person, the cops who killed Elijah McClain and Breonna Taylor were perfectly within their rights. As you said, the cops and other authorities found no evidence of the law being broken. The system worked as it should. And innocent black people are dead. After all, there is no law they can be charged with for breaking!

—————————

@Unthinking Majority

1. So the stat that says only 2 were killed by a white cop is misleading. Also, why should the race of the cop matter? Why did you mention it? Do you believe black cops cannot be racist?

2. This seems like a discussion about your opinion as to how the issue is portrayed.

3. If the issue is that you think cops are being unfairly judged, note that cops kill black people and get away with it. The MPD, for example, has killed over 200 people in the last few decades, and out of those, only three of these killings resulted in charges (including George Floyd) and only one resulted in a conviction.
#15107961
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. I made a mistake when I claimed that you were interested in gradually decreasing police brutality and violence. Now it appears that you do not care about reducing police brutality and killings at all. That is the whole goal of the enterprise.


How can you infer that based on what I said?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Civil laws are not criminal laws. According to the laws surrounding the killing (which are criminal laws) of another person, the cops who killed Elijah McClain and Breonna Taylor were perfectly within their rights. As you said, the cops and other authorities found no evidence of the law being broken. The system worked as it should. And innocent black people are dead. After all, there is no law they can be charged with for breaking!


Civil laws are of course laws. It's funny how you on one hand prefer to say that civil penalties are enough to deal with some types of crime yet now don't like it when I mention a case where it seems that's exactly the sort of penalty that may be forthcoming under the law.
#15107963
@wat0n

1. Your proposed policy changes make no mention of police brutality and killings and would seemingly have no effect on police brutality and killings.

2. Please define the difference between civil and criminal law. Also, note that you claim the police did not break any criminal law and I am agreeing. My argument, that you seem to have also argued, is that the killings of Breonna Taylor and Elijah McClain were perfectly legal. Thus, the system is designed to allow police to kill completely innocent black people with impunity.
#15107965
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. Your proposed policy changes make no mention of police brutality and killings and would seemingly have no effect on police brutality and killings.


What do you think is the goal behind increasing monitoring by, for instance, the compulsory use of bodycams?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Please define the difference between civil and criminal law. Also, note that you claim the police did not break any criminal law and I am agreeing. My argument, that you seem to have also argued, is that the killings of Breonna Taylor and Elijah McClain were perfectly legal. Thus, the system is designed to allow police to kill completely innocent black people with impunity.


No, it's not legal but the specific cops involved may not be the ones who broke the law. And yes, civil penalties are also a form of punishment.
#15107969
@wat0n

1. So the only proposal you have to reduce police brutality and killings is a monitoring program with mixed results that does not address the reasons for police brutality and killings.

2. Please define the difference between civil and criminal law. Also, are you now claiming that the police broke a criminal law ? My argument, that you seem to have also argued, is that the killings of Breonna Taylor and Elijah McClain were perfectly legal. Thus, the system is designed to allow police to kill completely innocent black people with impunity.
#15107970
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. So the only proposal you have to reduce police brutality and killings is a monitoring program with mixed results that does not address the reasons for police brutality and killings.


In the short run, it's the best policy. In the long run, addressing the underlying causes of crime will allow to decrease policing in general and therefore brutality.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Please define the difference between civil and criminal law. Also, are you now claiming that the police broke a criminal law ? My argument, that you seem to have also argued, is that the killings of Breonna Taylor and Elijah McClain were perfectly legal. Thus, the system is designed to allow police to kill completely innocent black people with impunity.


Are you done repeating yourself?
#15107975
@wat0n

1. Your argument seems to change and match mine whenever it suits you. But yes, addressing the root causes of crime is a better way to spend money than spending it on cops. And I see that you no longer believe that more cops equals less crime since you are now advocating for less cops.

2. I am asking you to clarify your understanding of the difference between two legal concepts since you seem to have some confusion. Please do so. I am also asking you to clarify a seeming contradiction in your argument. Please do so.
#15107982
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. Your argument seems to change and match mine whenever it suits you. But yes, addressing the root causes of crime is a better way to spend money than spending it on cops. And I see that you no longer believe that more cops equals less crime since you are now advocating for less cops.


Not really. The only part where we disagree is about whether abolishing or defunding the police would help to address the underlying socioeconomic roots of crime. You think it does, I think it doesn't (and may actually go against that goal) since it still fulfills the necessary function of deterring crime, particularly over the short run. And finding out how to better deploy the police requires an investment, which also goes against defunding.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. I am asking you to clarify your understanding of the difference between two legal concepts since you seem to have some confusion. Please do so. I am also asking you to clarify a seeming contradiction in your argument. Please do so.


I don't understand what point you are trying to make here, but anyway: Criminal law deals with crimes committed against the government, civil law deals with disputes between individuals, including over violations of the law. Why do you think that violating the Civil Rights Act leads to a civil claim and not a criminal one?
#15108235
@wat0n

1, I have no idea why you think I have argued that defunding or abolishing the police will lead to less crime, but you have incorrectly claimed this was my argument several times now. I have explained why it is a strawman just as many times. If police deter crime, especially over the short run, exaplin why Chicago had huge spike in violent crime during the Fourthof July weekend, despite the 1200 extra police.

2. So when the police killed Breonna Taylor, they broke no criminal laws. And the police found no reason to investigate or charge themselves, and the DAs agreed with this complete legality. So her killing was perfectly fine, and the system worked as it should: cops can kill black people with impunity.
#15108236
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1, I have no idea why you think I have argued that defunding or abolishing the police will lead to less crime, but you have incorrectly claimed this was my argument several times now. I have explained why it is a strawman just as many times. If police deter crime, especially over the short run, exaplin why Chicago had huge spike in violent crime during the Fourthof July weekend, despite the 1200 extra police.


Because police has been shown to decrease interactions with the population following incidents like the one that motivated this thread. And yes, you say so when you claim defunding or abolishing the police would allow to deal with the root causes of crime.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. So when the police killed Breonna Taylor, they broke no criminal laws. And the police found no reason to investigate or charge themselves, and the DAs agreed with this complete legality. So her killing was perfectly fine, and the system worked as it should: cops can kill black people with impunity.


The LPD did break the law, which is why it's opened itself to a wrongful death suit. But the penalty is dealt through civil law, not criminal one.
#15108239
@wat0n

1. yes and no. Police do decrease interactions after they have been caught on international media doing something like this. And this has been described as one plausible mechanism why higher crime rates have been observed. but if that were the case, then Chicago should have had a huge drop in crime rates because of the higher number of police and interactions. Instead, there was a huge increase.

2. Which law did the LPD break?
#15108242
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. yes and no. Police do decrease interactions after they have been caught on international media doing something like this. And this has been described as one plausible mechanism why higher crime rates have been observed. but if that were the case, then Chicago should have had a huge drop in crime rates because of the higher number of police and interactions. Instead, there was a huge increase.


What makes you believe that interactions have increased? Particularly in the neighborhoods that have been most affected by the current wave of criminal behavior.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Which law did the LPD break?


https://casetext.com/statute/kentucky-r ... -recovered
#15108259
@wat0n

1. Wave of violent crime in Chicago during Fourth of July weekend:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/chica ... index.html

Chicago adds 1200 cops for Fourth of July weekend:
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/c ... d/2297093/

So, either the idea that more interactions leads to less crime is wrong, or there are other factors that also affect crime that are far more significant.

2. Quote the relevant text and ex0lain whether or not it is a criminal law or a civil law.
#15108262
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. Wave of violent crime in Chicago during Fourth of July weekend:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/chica ... index.html

Chicago adds 1200 cops for Fourth of July weekend:
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/c ... d/2297093/

So, either the idea that more interactions leads to less crime is wrong, or there are other factors that also affect crime that are far more significant.


Recall the paper about police deterrence in Buenos Aires? The deterrent effect is very localized: If cops stay in one side of the city and not the other, the deterrent will not work on the side that has no police presence. Your own article from USA Today says the same when arguing that cops need to be deployed properly to efficiently fight crime, and that most Americans PDs (even those in large cities) need external consultants to do so, and these consultants inevitably cost money. So, what makes you believe that this effect has not been concentrated in areas that have little police presence?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Quote the relevant text and ex0lain whether or not it is a criminal law or a civil law.


It's a civil law, you are free to read it yourself. I'm not going to do the reading for you.
#15108263






Pants-of-dog wrote:1, I have no idea why you think I have argued that defunding or abolishing the police will lead to less crime, but you have incorrectly claimed this was my argument several times now. I have explained why it is a strawman just as many times.


I have the same experience debating wat0n. I'm beginning to think he does on purpose, particularly because his arguments are shit. He should just say he loves the schlong of power deep down his throat and stop time-wasting, but he seems to be obsessed with going around in circles, arguing against things nobody claims and boring the hell out of everyone. It is a sight to behold. He claims he's here to hone his arguing skills but he needs much more work on that front, by the looks of it. :D
#15108267
skinster wrote:I have the same experience debating wat0n. I'm beginning to think he does on purpose, particularly because his arguments are shit. He should just say he loves the schlong of power deep down his throat and stop time-wasting, but he seems to be obsessed with going around in circles, arguing against things nobody claims and boring the hell out of everyone. It is a sight to behold. He claims he's here to hone his arguing skills but he needs much more work on that front, by the looks of it. :D


No, it's simply that you don't understand the consequences of your own nonsensical claims. I think it's because you have problems reading anything longer than 200 characters long, snowflake crybaby.
#15108273
@wat0n

1. So you are making an ad hoc explanation that you have no support for in order to evade a factual contradiction to your argument. Note that you have no evidence that the cops were deployed “incorrectly”. In fact, the CPD deliberately targeted high crime areas. https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/07/01 ... y-weekend/

But by invoking this ad hoc explanation, you are implicitly agreeing that police numbers are not as important as other factors. Would it not make more sense to find out why there is a surge in shootings on this weekend every year?

2. So we agree that they broke no criminal law, and the police and DA have no need to deal with the killing of Breonna Taylor, and police were acting legally and within the system when they killed her.
  • 1
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168
  • 169
  • 170
  • 199

@Scamp Bombing Mexico is the STUPIDIEST idea I[…]

https://twitter.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/17737479[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Tainari88 @JohnRawls Trump is an extraordin[…]

No one is more manly than me. We know there is […]