Pants-of-dog wrote:Not that I can see.
Whether they'd be prosecuted or not did not factor into their decision, because they didn't think about they were doing since they did not premeditate this deadly beating. As you said, they got carried over which means by definition they did not consider context.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, that is your usual tactic of shifting the burden onto me as a way of deflecting from supporting your claims.
You mean like when you want one to prove a negative? I can't think of any clearer attempt to shift the burden of proof than that.
And no, proving something is impossible is not the same as proving a negative, like you've tried to claim in the past.
It is up to you: Please show these cops beat Tyre Nichols up thinking they'd get away with it because of systemic racism.
Note that if they don't believe in systemic racism in policing, then your claim is false. And if they do, you still have to show they beat Tyre Nichols up because they thought they could get away with it while at the same time explaining how is it that the beating was not premeditated.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And we do know something of their mindset by watching their behaviour on the bodycam footage.
They were fustbumping and congratulating each other and openly making up lies about the incident.
How does this behaviour reconcile with your argument that they knew nothing of systemic racism and would have therefore assumed that the cops and prosecutors would have held them accountable?
Again, my argument is simply that they did not think about systemic racism at all, because they did not premeditate the beating. Hence, no, this incident did not happen because of systemic racism.
Even worse, the fact that they tried to make an excuse up should be seen as evidence that they did not feel they could just get away with the beating. And the fact that it was so poorly executed further supports the idea they did not have any actual plan or foresight.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And you are arguing that they thought they could get away with it because they are stupid and do not plan things.
Tell me, has a Memphis cop ever been convicted of killing a black man before this?
If not, then it is reasonable that the murdering cops thought they would get away with it as they have before.
Oh so they did premeditate the beating, then. Did they? After all, if they are thinking whether other cops have ever been convicted for killing Black people in the past to decide if they want to beat someone, then there is definitely premeditation here.
Oh but you said there's not. And no one has said so either, it also cannot be inferred from the available evidence.
What I can see is that the cops got angry that Tyre Nichols tried to flee, after being caught by surprise by the cops. Their murderous reaction, of course, is obviously unjustified and I expect them to be punished since the evidence does show beyond reasonable doubt they were guilty of this deadly beating and TN law is quite clear that they committed a second degree murder.
I actually find it interesting that you now believe in the deterrence theory of crime prevention, i.e. the idea that the risk of punishment deters crime. You were arguing against it quite recently when it came to shoplifting, but you now believe it when it comes to crimes committed by police. What gives?
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you do not know, then why are you arguing that systemic racism has nothing to do with this?
Because no one has established premeditation and also because it seems unlikely the cops themselves were thinking about race.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Can we then assume that you have no evidence for the claim that they were not aware of or did not take systemic racism into consideration?
Can we assume you don't have evidence when you say they did, even more so when no one has established premeditation?
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, none of these accusations seem to be true.
That much was established in the inquiry done on that Canadian killer nurse. Yes, the union she was a member of tried to stop the investigation.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Stop trying to throw muck at innocent people in order to defend cops who support murder.
I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply illustrating your hypocrisy regarding public sector unions: Police unions' culture of secrecy is evil yet other public sector unions' (like nurse unions') culture of secrecy is OK, even when it comes to investigating potential murders.
Police unions extracting clauses from their departments like that they shall not give a negative referral to members who seek jobs elsewhere is evil and an example of the cop culture of secrecy, but it's not when nurses do it.
Pants-of-dog wrote: Your support of police murder culture is morally questionable, no matter how unsurprising it is.
I'm not supporting any murder culture, on the contrary, I'm getting exactly at the culture of secrecy that enables that and other forms of misconduct within government. But I'm not a hypocrite when it comes to opposing that kind of thing, I want transparency in the whole
government and don't pretend it's only a problem when it has a racist undertone.
But you have, in fact, done so when it comes to policing elsewhere - like in Cuba:
Pants-of-dog wrote:And how should Cuba do that, in terms of dealing with the fact that a free press and a multiparty system will be used by the CIA to destroy Cuban sovereignty?
So who do you think you are to lecture others? Is this disregard for democracy why you - the all-knowing Marxist white Chilean exile in Canada - want to tell the African American community of Memphis how to vote? Why do you justify and support the murder of democracy activists in Cuba? Maybe you could stop doing so before pretending to be a beacon of morality.