[ckaihatsu]

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Is District Attorney General Steve Mulroy a new DA? I.e. did he get the job after the murder of George Floyd?

Also is he progressive, or leans that way?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then my earlier prediction seems correct.

[Unthinking Majority]

Being aware that they can get away with a crime does not mean premeditation is involved.

So the murdering cops thought they could get away with it and no premeditation involved.

Police have a culture of brotherhood where they all protect each other from allegations of wrongdoing from the public. This goes well beyond race to just about everything. Cops don't snitch on each other.

So yes, the cops thought they could get away with it. Super weird given they had bodycams on. But they didn't know there was a street cam on them that captured everything.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Is District Attorney General Steve Mulroy a new DA? I.e. did he get the job after the murder of George Floyd?

Also is he progressive, or leans that way?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then my earlier prediction seems correct.

He was elected this year. He's a Democrat, not sure about the wing.

Note that it is voters who elect these officials, if voters want DAs to change their policy regarding police brutality allegations then they'll do so. It's democracy in action, basically.

It is also not too different from what happened in SF last year, where the uber progressive DA was recalled over the crime situation over there.

[Pants-of-dog]

He was elected this year. He's a Democrat, not sure about the wing.

This then explains why the cops felt they would get away with it and did not.

Note that it is voters who elect these officials, if voters want DAs to change their policy regarding police brutality allegations then they'll do so. It's democracy in action, basically.

It is also not too different from what happened in SF last year, where the uber progressive DA was recalled over the crime situation over there.

Sure.

It would be interesting to look at this case again in a few decades, especially if the work against systemic racism continues to create significant changes.

[SpecialOlympian]

So these are self hating Blacks or what?

Not at all. I'm sure they were proud and their mothers bragged about them having good blue collar jobs with pensions.

But because American policing is systemically racist, and has no problem beating black people to death on the street, they probably felt they had to be more violent to prove themselves to their drunken white Irish-Catholic colleagues. Whom I also hate, for being degenerates.

You assume being a violent enforcer of state violence is an idpol thing. Probably because you're stupid. In fact, the best enforcers of systemic and violent oppression are members of the group being oppressed because they are pressured to prove themselves.

American policing crushed George Floyd's windpipes into the street for ten minutes and a million racist voices sprung up to say that he was dying of fentanyl because he was a drug addict. When you're an American policeman and you have the strongest union ever, and a racist media to support you, why wouldn't you just murder people to make your job easier?

You don't just become a part-time enforcer of violent racism. You either commit, or you literally get murdered by other cops for failing to commit and your cop buddies think you might turn on them. American policing is no different from joining a gang. There is no half-in, half-out with a violent gang. Just as there are no good cops, as the system has corrected for good cops by killing them for reporting the crimes of the violent gang they are part of.

There will always be a million dipshits like you springing up like mushrooms on a cow turd to defend obvious acts of violence. All I can say to you is: shoeshine must taste really good, you fucking bootlicker.

[wat0n]

This then explains why the cops felt they would get away with it and did not.

How so?

I thought Democrats are just like Republicans, and as such it doesn't matter who do voters elect. Indeed, you said as much in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and the fact it happened on one of the most progressive jurisdictions in the US.

Not at all. I'm sure they were proud and their mothers bragged about them having good blue collar jobs with pensions.

But because American policing is systemically racist, and has no problem beating black people to death on the street, they probably felt they had to be more violent to prove themselves to their drunken white Irish-Catholic colleagues. Whom I also hate, for being degenerates.

You assume being a violent enforcer of state violence is an idpol thing. Probably because you're stupid. In fact, the best enforcers of systemic and violent oppression are members of the group being oppressed because they are pressured to prove themselves.

American policing crushed George Floyd's windpipes into the street for ten minutes and a million racist voices sprung up to say that he was dying of fentanyl because he was a drug addict. When you're an American policeman and you have the strongest union ever, and a racist media to support you, why wouldn't you just murder people to make your job easier?

You don't just become a part-time enforcer of violent racism. You either commit, or you literally get murdered by other cops for failing to commit and your cop buddies think you might turn on them. American policing is no different from joining a gang. There is no half-in, half-out with a violent gang. Just as there are no good cops, as the system has corrected for good cops by killing them for reporting the crimes of the violent gang they are part of.

There will always be a million dipshits like you springing up like mushrooms on a cow turd to defend obvious acts of violence. All I can say to you is: shoeshine must taste really good, you fucking bootlicker.

Seems like someone is having a tantrum because his narrative doesn't hold up to the facts and he's too much of a moron to think of any alternative explanations here.

[Pants-of-dog]

How so?

I thought Democrats are just like Republicans, and as such it doesn't matter who do voters elect. Indeed, you said as much in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and the fact it happened on one of the most progressive jurisdictions in the US.

Again, do you agree that this investigation is different than the usual?

Seems like someone is having a tantrum because his narrative doesn't hold up to the facts and he's too much of a moron to think of any alternative explanations here.

Are you saying that those who are arguing that systemic racism is not an issue are being immature?

Those are the only people whose narrative does not explain the facts.

[wat0n]

Again, do you agree that this investigation is different than the usual?

What's "the usual"?

This incident doesn't seem to be "usual", neither are those which end up being viralized. It's why they become viral.

Memphis in particular hadn't seen this type of incident for many years.

You claimed that their state of mind was such that they strategically thought they could get away with this kind of thing. This quite clearly requires premeditation, but even the DA didn't think he had evidence for it and hence he didn't charge for first degree murder.

Are you saying that those who are arguing that systemic racism is not an issue are being immature?

Those are the only people whose narrative does not explain the facts.

No.

You have yet to explain properly how does systemic racism explain this incident here. The more we learn about it, the less sense it makes.

Even you seem to now be saying the cops were somehow "surprised" to be prosecuted, although even that isn't true or else they wouldn't have felt the need to start saying Nichols was armed. To me, it seems they realized they fucked up and were trying to manufacture an excuse.

[Pants-of-dog]

What's "the usual"?

Well, usually these investigations take years, are not independent, and occur after sustained public outcry.

This incident doesn't seem to be "usual", neither are those which end up being viralized. It's why they become viral.

Memphis in particular hadn't seen this type of incident for many years.

I did not discuss whether or not the murder itself was unusual.

You claimed that their state of mind was such that they strategically thought they could get away with this kind of thing. This quite clearly requires premeditation, but even the DA didn't think he had evidence for it and hence he didn't charge for first degree murder.

No. It requires no premeditation.

No.

You have yet to explain properly how does systemic racism explain this incident here. The more we learn about it, the less sense it makes.

I disagree. I think I hace explained it more tham once, and while it is a bit complicated, everyone else seems to get it.

Even you seem to now be saying the cops were somehow "surprised" to be prosecuted,

Yes, this is part of my claim.

Which is corroborated by the fact of the new DA.

although even that isn't true or else they wouldn't have felt the need to start saying Nichols was armed. To me, it seems they realized they fucked up and were trying to manufacture an excuse.

And I addressed this. Note the difference between an excuse for public consumption and an excuse for other cops.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog so it seems you are just repeating your points now. Just to rehash:

1) Your narrative requires premeditation, by definition
2) The fact that the cops tried to manufacture an excuse undermines the idea that they were somehow surprised by the DA's reaction
3) The cops who are investigating this incident are state police, not from the city
4) Furthermore, why would this excuse need to be meant for cops anyway? If the institution is so racist that this kind of thing is business as usual then no such excuse is necessary internally or when dealing with other cops
5) Even worse, the one category of officials that excuse would be directed to would be prosecutors since they are the ones who decide whether to launch an investigation or not
6) In any event, these recordings will usually be made public sooner or later since trying to hide them will make the public suspicious as it has happened in pretty much every other similar incident in the last decade or so and I also doubt cops will want to give up the possibility of releasing a recording whenever doing so would justify the use of force (and you can find a fair amount of those too)

[wat0n]

Delete

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog so it seems you are just repeating your points now. Just to rehash:

1) Your narrative requires premeditation, by definition

No, it does not.

2) The fact that the cops tried to manufacture an excuse undermines the idea that they were somehow surprised by the DA's reaction

No.

I just repeated how this is not a problen.

3) The cops who are investigating this incident are state police, not from the city

Yes, I alluded to that.

4) Furthermore, why would this excuse need to be meant for cops anyway? If the institution is so racist that this kind of thing is business as usual then no such excuse is necessary internally or when dealing with other cops

You misunderstood.

I specifically mentioned that the murderers felt they did not need an excuse for the other cops.

5) Even worse, the one category of officials that excuse would be directed to would be prosecutors since they are the ones who decide whether to launch an investigation or not

Not quite. But I discussed the whole DA things already.

6) In any event, these recordings will usually be made public sooner or later since trying to hide them will make the public suspicious as it has happened in pretty much every other similar incident in the last decade or so and I also doubt cops will want to give up the possibility of releasing a recording whenever doing so would justify the use of force (and you can find a fair amount of those too)

Yes, now that these recordings exist and the public has seen many examples of how to make them public, we are now having discussions about (and addressing) the systemic racism in policing.

[wat0n]

No, it does not.

Yes it does. Read the definition of "premeditation"

No.

I just repeated how this is not a problen.

It is, as shown by points 3 onwards.

Yes, I alluded to that.

And are therefore not part of Memphis police, hence fall into the "independent investigators" category.

You misunderstood.

I specifically mentioned that the murderers felt they did not need an excuse for the other cops.

Then why did they say Nichols had reached for one of their guns? Who is that excuse meant for? It doesn't seem to be directed to anyone else but prosecutors.

Not quite. But I discussed the whole DA things already.

The final decision falls on the DA. You are still to explain why does the DA's political affiliation matter, you claimed it didn't when George Floyd was murdered.

Yes, now that these recordings exist and the public has seen many examples of how to make them public, we are now having discussions about (and addressing) the systemic racism in policing.

An another thing you claimed at the time is that bodycams aren't all that useful, even in the face of research suggesting otherwise. Which one is it?

To me, at least, it seems they are useful to check police power and to do so fairly. Truth is, after all, the best defense.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes it does. Read the definition of "premeditation"

I addressed this here:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=183258&p=15263472#p15263482

It is, as shown by points 3 onwards.

Then why did they say Nichols had reached for one of their guns? Who is that excuse meant for? It doesn't seem to be directed to anyone else but prosecutors.

I addressed this here:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=183258&p=15263472#p15263482

And are therefore not part of Memphis police, hence fall into the "independent investigators" category.

Yes, I mentioned that.

Note that this is unusual.

Usually, the cops make their own investigation in house.

The final decision falls on the DA. You are still to explain why does the DA's political affiliation matter, you claimed it didn't when George Floyd was murdered.

I never claimed it did. Nor did I ask what his party affiliation is.

An another thing you claimed at the time is that bodycams aren't all that useful, even in the face of research suggesting otherwise. Which one is it?

To me, at least, it seems they are useful to check police power and to do so fairly. Truth is, after all, the best defense.

Note that the bodycams did not prevent this murder or the hundreds of other murders by cops.

You seem to be happy with a reduction in murders by cops.

I want them to be stopped entirely.

[wat0n]

I addressed this here:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=183258&p=15263472#p15263482

No, you did not. Your rape analogy also doesn't make sense, and its premise is false anyway.

I addressed this here:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=183258&p=15263472#p15263482

Also didn't address anything here.

Yes, I mentioned that.

Note that this is unusual.

Usually, the cops make their own investigation in house.

But not always, and if they do then members of the public can force the PD to release all the footage. There is in fact precedent.

I never claimed it did. Nor did I ask what his party affiliation is.

So why did it suddenly matter to you when I mentioned the current DA is a Democrat?

Note that the bodycams did not prevent this murder or the hundreds of other murders by cops.

You seem to be happy with a reduction in murders by cops.

I want them to be stopped entirely.

And yet they are an effective means to get the truth out and therefore get justice served. Also, wouldn't we all want ALL murders to be stopped entirely? Too bad unicorns and Santa don't exist.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. The fact that you do not like or perhaps do not understand my explanations does not mean that I did nit make them.

2. You do not seem to disagree with the claim that most investigations of cop murders are done by cops on the same force as the murderer(s); i.e. the majority are not independent.

3. It did not matter when you claimed the DA was a Democrat.

4. There are developed countries where police do not kill anyone. So, unlike unicorns and Santa, I am discussing real things. Why do you find hundreds of police murders every year acceptable?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. The fact that you do not like or perhaps do not understand my explanations does not mean that I did nit make them.

Honestly, you just repeated yourself.

2. You do not seem to disagree with the claim that most investigations of cop murders are done by cops on the same force as the murderer(s); i.e. the majority are not independent.

Yet not this one, and it's not unprecedented either.

3. It did not matter when you claimed the DA was a Democrat.

Then why did you ask about his political affiliation?

4. There are developed countries where police do not kill anyone. So, unlike unicorns and Santa, I am discussing real things. Why do you find hundreds of police murders every year acceptable?

And there are other developed countries where cops do kill people, police brutality isn't exclusive to the US.

But more importantly, what matters is to get unjustified violence exposed and those responsible tried. Ultimately, that will be the only way it will stop.

[Pants-of-dog]

Honestly, you just repeated yourself.

Yet not this one, and it's not unprecedented either.

I never said it was the only independent investigation ever.

It is also happening a lot faster than most. Do you agree with that too?

Then why did you ask about his political affiliation?

I asked if he was progressive. The actual determining factor would be if he is trying to address systemic racism, and it is logical to assume that a progressive DA would want to.

Now, take this new and ideological DA, plus an unusual independent investigation, and we can start to see why the murdering cops would be surprised when things are not going as they normally would.

And there are other developed countries where cops do kill people, police brutality isn't exclusive to the US.

Not nearly to the same degree, no. The USA is unique among developed countries in the incredibly high number of police killings it has.

But more importantly, what matters is to get unjustified violence exposed and those responsible tried. Ultimately, that will be the only way it will stop.

If you only want to use bodycams and not address other issues, it limits the amount of change you are willing to tolerate. From a practical perspective, this support of the status quo in all measures except bodycams implies a support for all the murders caused by said factors.

Is there a number of police murders you are no longer willing to accept? How many is finally one too many?

[wat0n]

I never said it was the only independent investigation ever.

It is also happening a lot faster than most. Do you agree with that too?

I agree things seem to be moving faster. I think it has to do with the greater availability of cameras and the more developed social media, and why not, the fact that these have made everyone conscious that we don't need to assume cops are always saying the truth. Instead, we can analyze in a case by case basis.

I asked if he was progressive. The actual determining factor would be if he is trying to address systemic racism, and it is logical to assume that a progressive DA would want to.

Now, take this new and ideological DA, plus an unusual independent investigation, and we can start to see why the murdering cops would be surprised when things are not going as they normally would.

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

Not nearly to the same degree, no. The USA is unique among developed countries in the incredibly high number of police killings it has.

And also in gun violence.

If you only want to use bodycams and not address other issues, it limits the amount of change you are willing to tolerate. From a practical perspective, this support of the status quo in all measures except bodycams implies a support for all the murders caused by said factors.

Is there a number of police murders you are no longer willing to accept? How many is finally one too many?

No one "accepts" murders, which is why bodycams are so useful. So justice is served.

And you act as if being able to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt of murder was no big deal.