Derek Chauvin Trial - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By wat0n
#15168613
Pants-of-dog wrote:It would have been perfectly easy and normal to arrest him for murder and then discuss plea bargains.

In an egalitarian society where cops are not treated better than everyone else and black people are not treated worse, this would have been the case.


You mean like Cuba, where cops can and do kill Black people with complete impunity? Is that the "egalitarian society" you have in mind? Maybe one shouldn't care about what you see as an "egalitarian society", given your stance in this issue.

By the way, I wouldn't be so sure that the above thing would not happen with someone who wasn't a cop.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your text does not say that this was due to the protests, Please read it again more carefully.


"Barr worried that protestors might view the agreement as too lenient and prefer a full investigation."

Pants-of-dog wrote:So we see that the MPD initially tried to argue that Mr. Floyd died of medical conditions.

And we also see that when videos of the murder surfaced, they still did not charge the cops.

So, at this point, we can see that video evidence is enough to stop them from openly lying, but not enough to get a murderer arrested.


What was enough to issue the arrest was the joint video and autopsy evidence, along with the collapse of the plea bargain. But the videos on their own were enough for the MPD to change its tune and request the FBI to conduct its own investigation.

On the other hand, we have yet to even learn the name of the Cuban cop who shot Hansel Hernandez.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I find your moral outrage over my imagined moral flaws to be amusing.

You should pretend I am also racist so you can feel justified about attacking me for my imagined racism while you are at it. :lol:


I find your moral outrage even more amusing, in all. At least I am not the one defending Cuba even when its police kills Blacks people while pretending to care about their problems in the USA :D
#15168629
wat0n wrote:Is that the "egalitarian society" you have in mind? Maybe one shouldn't care about what you see as an "egalitarian society", given your stance in this issue.


My opinion is irrelevant.

The US claims to be a liberal democracy. Egalitarianism is a basic tenet of liberal democracy. Consequently, if we are to judge the USA based on its own principles and norms, we have to say that the society is not as egalitarian as it should be.

"Barr worried that protestors might view the agreement as too lenient and prefer a full investigation."


Yes, that is the exact text that shows that Barr’s feelings about possible protests were the cause. The protests were not.

What was enough to issue the arrest was the joint video and autopsy evidence, along with the collapse of the plea bargain. But the videos on their own were enough for the MPD to change its tune and request the FBI to conduct its own investigation.


The protests and international media attention also were necessary.
By wat0n
#15168630
Pants-of-dog wrote:My opinion is irrelevant.

The US claims to be a liberal democracy. Egalitarianism is a basic tenet of liberal democracy. Consequently, if we are to judge the USA based on its own principles and norms, we have to say that the society is not as egalitarian as it should be.


Sure, and as a liberal democracy it accepts its flaws and tries to fix them ("form a more perfect union"). But Cuba and others are supposedly more egalitarian, and those who support its government and its policing ostensibly claim so.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, that is the exact text that shows that Barr’s feelings about possible protests were the cause. The protests were not.


I think the protests had already began by the 28th. At least for Barr, the protests seem to have mattered as far as rejecting the plea bargain goes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The protests and international media attention also were necessary.


Why would Chauvin request a third degree murder and 10 years then?

Based on Barr's views, it would seem the protests were useful to avoid a plea bargain, but if it had been taken Chauvin would have faced 10 years. I think he'll face more, but it was not a given he'd be found guilty for second degree murder and second degree manslaughter along the third degree murder Chauvin was offering at the time.
#15168632
wat0n wrote:Sure, and as a liberal democracy it accepts its flaws and tries to fix them ("form a more perfect union").


Not quite.

It is supposed to do this, but whether or not the US actually foes accept its flaws and try to fix them is not a certain thing. In fact, it seems that the US (like every other country in the world) only does so when forced to do so by the people.

I think the protests had already began by the 28th. At least for Barr, the protests seem to have mattered as far as rejecting the plea bargain goes.


According to the text that you quoted, it was his fear of future protests.

Why would Chauvin request a third degree murder and 10 years then?


Because by then, the protests were growing, there was international media attention, and his lawyer probably explained to him that he was up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

Based on Barr's views, it would seem the protests were useful to avoid a plea bargain, but if it had been taken Chauvin would have faced 10 years. I think he'll face more, but it was not a given he'd be found guilty for second degree murder and second degree manslaughter along the third degree murder Chauvin was offering at the time.


In terms of what could have been accomplished after this unfortunate murder, things worked out well. This has had impacts throughout the justice and policing systems. Hopefully, these impacts create positive and lasting changes.

For example, the blue wall of silence was broken for perhaps the first time ever.
By wat0n
#15168634
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not quite.

It is supposed to do this, but whether or not the US actually foes accept its flaws and try to fix them is not a certain thing. In fact, it seems that the US (like every other country in the world) only does so when forced to do so by the people.


You mean by the will of the voters? Who's "the people" here?

And I also don't know what your point is here. I think it's clear the US has steadily improved on these issues. Can Cuba say the same? It clearly isn't as egalitarian as usually claimed, given the cases of police killings of Blacks there. Has it improved on this regard in the last few decades? It seems like most of that improvement consisted in banning things like segregation (enforced before the Revolution), but afterwards they simply preferred to ignore the outstanding issues.

Pants-of-dog wrote:According to the text that you quoted, it was his fear of future protests.


I'd interpret it as referring to the current protests at the time (mostly because they had already begun), but sure.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because by then, the protests were growing, there was international media attention, and his lawyer probably explained to him that he was up the proverbial creek without a paddle.


Or maybe because the autopsy report (plus the videos) had completely doomed his case regardless. By that time (the 28th) protests had not become nearly as big as they would be.

I wonder what would have happened if the plea bargain attempt, and rejection, had been made public. I think that could have actually calmed things down a bit.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In terms of what could have been accomplished after this unfortunate murder, things worked out well. This has had impacts throughout the justice and policing systems. Hopefully, these impacts create positive and lasting changes.

For example, the blue wall of silence was broken for perhaps the first time ever.


I'd say that indeed the big change will now be with regards to how the cops behave, including as witnesses. They won't be able to rely on presumptions as freely as they had been until a few years ago, and they are finally getting the message.
#15168637
colliric wrote:No it's not fine, your country has become way too partisan in the streets.


You are one of the most partisan posters on this forum and have literally stated you have to support Trump because he's a Republican, despite not even living in America. Just lmfao at every stance you have taken in this thread.

"Things are too partisan. Also, here's a completely unrelated thing as to why the Democrats are bad." Jesus Christ, listen to yourself.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15168638
SpecialOlympian wrote:
You are one of the most partisan posters on this forum and have literally stated you have to support Trump because he's a Republican, despite not even living in America. Just lmfao at every stance you have taken in this thread.

"Things are too partisan. Also, here's a completely unrelated thing as to why the Democrats are bad." Jesus Christ, listen to yourself.


This has been a common theme among the conservatives on pofo. They are just oozing with self-entitlement. "XYZ is ok when I do it, but not anyone else." is how these people operate.
#15168669
wat0n wrote:.....

Or maybe because the autopsy report (plus the videos) had completely doomed his case regardless. By that time (the 28th) protests had not become nearly as big as they would be.


As more publicly available evidence became known, the inaction was met with further protest.

I wonder what would have happened if the plea bargain attempt, and rejection, had been made public. I think that could have actually calmed things down a bit.


I can think of many things that would have made everything calm down more quickly than that.

Stopping this killer from murdering Mr, Floyd is the most obvious one.

I'd say that indeed the big change will now be with regards to how the cops behave, including as witnesses. They won't be able to rely on presumptions as freely as they had been until a few years ago, and they are finally getting the message.


Some may change their behaviour. Some may not. It is impossible to even verify this prediction in the future, since we have no real numbers now of the number of police killings, justified or not.
By wat0n
#15168674
Pants-of-dog wrote:As more publicly available evidence became known, the inaction was met with further protest.


Well, I think we can now tell that some things had indeed been going on behind the scenes. I think I actually saw that press conference where the feds were going to announce something big, in theory, but they simply said that the investigation would be fair and the like. I found it odd that they would call a conference just to say something as generic.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I can think of many things that would have made everything calm down more quickly than that.

Stopping this killer from murdering Mr, Floyd is the most obvious one.


Right, but by the 28th that was obviously not possible. I'm guessing Trump didn't want to lose face, but I don't know if that was the calculation behind not saying anything about the plea bargain.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Some may change their behaviour. Some may not. It is impossible to even verify this prediction in the future, since we have no real numbers now of the number of police killings, justified or not.


Indeed, that's true. But I think that everyone notes something important happened in this trial, given how the cops themselves decided to let Chauvin fall.

Of course, there will always be those who don't really get the message anyway... Just like banning murder hasn't really done away with the practice, but since it's illegal people may think it twice before pulling the trigger.
User avatar
By colliric
#15168685
SpecialOlympian wrote:You are one of the most partisan posters on this forum and have literally stated you have to support Trump because he's a Republican, despite not even living in America. Just lmfao at every stance you have taken in this thread.

"Things are too partisan. Also, here's a completely unrelated thing as to why the Democrats are bad." Jesus Christ, listen to yourself.


So im not allowed to agree with you on anything now... including Chauvin deserving the murder sentence and hating Police brutality, Got it. Lol.

I agree with the Republican Party platform more at the moment, so I had no choice but to support Trump. I'm not a conservative, I'm an Australian Liberal that enjoys his swing vote status. If you're country had preference voting, I'd put your party second. I hate minority parties.

I also support Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, and you know that already.
#15168756
wat0n wrote:Well, I think we can now tell that some things had indeed been going on behind the scenes. I think I actually saw that press conference where the feds were going to announce something big, in theory, but they simply said that the investigation would be fair and the like. I found it odd that they would call a conference just to say something as generic.

Right, but by the 28th that was obviously not possible. I'm guessing Trump didn't want to lose face, but I don't know if that was the calculation behind not saying anything about the plea bargain.

Indeed, that's true. But I think that everyone notes something important happened in this trial, given how the cops themselves decided to let Chauvin fall.

Of course, there will always be those who don't really get the message anyway... Just like banning murder hasn't really done away with the practice, but since it's illegal people may think it twice before pulling the trigger.


1. There may have been things happening behind the scenes, but the lack of transparency undoubtedly led to the protests and the appearance of inaction.

Having said that, it is obvious why the MPD and the police union would have wanted a lack of transparency, since they were basically trying to find a way for the murderer to not lose his job or be charged, and they thought it might look bad to be seen defending a murderer who killed his victim in broad daylight in front of a crowd of cameras.

2. Please note that police killing people (especially BIPOC people) has been legal until now, for all practical purposes. In most cases, it still is legal. The big change we are now seeing is that people are finally treating it as illegal.
By wat0n
#15168758
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. There may have been things happening behind the scenes, but the lack of transparency undoubtedly led to the protests and the appearance of inaction.

Having said that, it is obvious why the MPD and the police union would have wanted a lack of transparency, since they were basically trying to find a way for the murderer to not lose his job or be charged, and they thought it might look bad to be seen defending a murderer who killed his victim in broad daylight in front of a crowd of cameras.

2. Please note that police killing people (especially BIPOC people) has been legal until now, for all practical purposes. In most cases, it still is legal. The big change we are now seeing is that people are finally treating it as illegal.


I think both points can be explained by the same reason: It was hard to beat presumption of innocence in those cases, since security forces can legitimately use force as part of their jobs. The reason why it's much harder for them to get away with misusing force, when it happens, is that now we can defeat presumption of innocence thanks to the ability to massively deploy new bodycam technology (which is fairly recent).

Otherwise, I agree and I don't find it surprising e.g. cop unions would defend their members. It's rare for unions not to defend their members or workers in their industry when there is misconduct, since that's exactly what unions are for: Defending workers, right or wrong. I also don't find it surprising PDs and localities would budge since policing is a type of job where unions can and do become powerful for obvious reasons (the costs of a strike are prohibitively large for any jurisdiction). That means that evidentiary requirements do indeed become really strong in practice.
#15168759
@wat0n

It has nothing to do with unions. Like the last time you accused unions of defending murderers, the only ones that do are police unions. It has nothing to do with unions, and everything to do with police.
By wat0n
#15168761
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

It has nothing to do with unions. Like the last time you accused unions of defending murderers, the only ones that do are police unions. It has nothing to do with unions, and everything to do with police.


I didn't speak of unions in general, just about the police union. Although we also saw they would sometimes do it in other industries, like nursing...

I don't know why are you so surprised, since unions will reflexively defend their members. It's what they are for, along with other workers in the industry who aren't members (but may become so).
#15168775
wat0n wrote:I didn't speak of unions in general, just about the police union. Although we also saw they would sometimes do it in other industries, like nursing...


You certainly seemed like you were discussing unions in general.

You should clarify: do you think unions in general support murderers, or just police unions? Please be specific.

And no, your example with the nurses did not show that they knowingly supported a murderer and tried to get them to not be charged with murder.

I don't know why are you so surprised, since unions will reflexively defend their members. It's what they are for, along with other workers in the industry who aren't members (but may become so).


See? Here you are saying that unions in general will defend their members from being charged or fired even after the member kills people in broad daylight et cetera.
By wat0n
#15168780
@Pants-of-dog I was referring to police unions, at least when a member is involved in that business (I highly doubt they'll support people who kill cops). I recall the nursing union was in fact aware of the misconduct of that nurse in that case, including the suspicions of what she was doing.

I see no reason for other unions to support killer cops, though.
#15168786
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog I was referring to police unions, at least when a member is involved in that business (I highly doubt they'll support people who kill cops).


So, are you now clarifying that you did not mean unions in general and are now agreeing that only police unions do this?

I recall the nursing union was in fact aware of the misconduct of that nurse in that case, including the suspicions of what she was doing.


You recall incorrectly.

I see no reason for other unions to support killer cops, though.


No one asked this.
By wat0n
#15168787
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, are you now clarifying that you did not mean unions in general and are now agreeing that only police unions do this?


If "this" means "supporting police officers accused of murder", yes. If "this" means "supporting their own members accused of murder", no.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You recall incorrectly.


No, I don't. I recall it perfectly and the report criticized the union agreements that prevented having serious violations of protocol on the violator's permanent record, including those that supported the suspicions against this nurse. It's very similar to what police unions do, by barring PDs from sharing similar violations of their protocols when cops then fired. Then, another PD may unknowingly hire a cop with a history of misconduct elsewhere.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No one asked this.


I hope that clarifies my position.
#15168797
wat0n wrote:If "this" means "supporting police officers accused of murder", yes. If "this" means "supporting their own members accused of murder", no.



No, I don't. I recall it perfectly and the report criticized the union agreements that prevented having serious violations of protocol on the violator's permanent record, including those that supported the suspicions against this nurse. It's very similar to what police unions do, by barring PDs from sharing similar violations of their protocols when cops then fired. Then, another PD may unknowingly hire a cop with a history of misconduct elsewhere.



I hope that clarifies my position.


Please present evidence that any union has ever defended a known murderer other than a police union.

I predict you will say that you provided the evidence in the other thread.

I am going to go ahead and remind you that you remembered incorrectly l
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 22
US Supreme Court Watch

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled unanimously for[…]

Plea to save mice 'proves PETA lives with pixies'[…]

WHAT disenfranchised blacks ? There ARE no disenf[…]

As of the date of this post at least , neither Tan[…]