-->
@ludofl3x
I agree.
policeman in george floyd case should probably be found innocent
Posts
Total:
259
-->
@Danielle
But I have to hold bootlickers accountable as well. People who say things like "why would you run from the cops???" Well, for starters, they can't tell their glock from their taser.
All the more reason not to give them a reason to fire their "Taser." But I do like the resist authority attitude, makes me think there can be an actual storming of the Capitol and not that fake shit.
-->
@Greyparrot
All the more reason not to give them a reason to fire their "Taser."
That's not how the presumption of innocence is supposed to work. These are civil servants, first and foremost, paid by tax dollars with lawsuits settled, essentially, by tax dollars (tax dollars pay the insurance I'm sure they have for big cases, not individual municipalities). Asking a cop why you're being detained is your right as an American, refusing an unlawful search is your right as an American. It's not a reason for a cop to fire a taser, and it isn't 'resisting arrest' to ask these basic questions. Cops are trusted with lethal and non lethal weapons and techniques because we assume they're trained to AVOID USING THEM whenever possible. There seem to be two types of cops: the ones who don't want to use their weapons and training against their FELLOW CITIZEN (cops are not a different 'class' of person, is my point, they should be as liable for unlawful conduct as anyone else is), and the ones who can't wait to use them. Whether you're a racist or you're not, it's the second type of cop that's a real danger.
That's not how the presumption of innocence is supposed to work.
Presumption of innocence doesn't trump the authority to arrest someone before a trial, otherwise mandatory Jailings and bail would be illegal.
It's not a reason for a cop to fire a taser, and it isn't 'resisting arrest' to ask these basic questions.
No, but driving off in your car is.
-->
@Greyparrot
Presumption of innocence doesn't trump the authority to arrest someone before a trial, otherwise mandatory Jailings and bail would be illegal.
That's not what we're talking about. Submitting to an illegal search, the right to know why you're being arrested or detained, that's the initial presumption of innocence. Exercising those rights doesn't mean you are now liable for being assaulted. And if they'd arrested him and put him in the back of a squad car, brought him to jail and put him on bail, particularly when he'd stopped "resisting," rather than murdered him, we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all, right?
No, but driving off in your car is.
Is it? How? What potential bodily harm does driving off in your car present to a police officer?
-->
@ludofl3x
Is it? How? What potential bodily harm does driving off in your car present to a police officer?
The police officer is far more worried about criminal activity on society than personal safety, otherwise, there would be no arrests.
Just let every criminal activity slide and let everyone go. Far less risky to the life of a police officer to do that.
-->
@Greyparrot
The police officer is far more worried about criminal activity on society than personal safety, otherwise, there would be no arrests.
That doesn't answer the question at all. And if they're not worried about personal safety, why do they carry guns?
I think your view of police officers is a little naive. My former best friend, a guy who was the godfather to both my kids, eventually became a police officer. Through him I met a ton of cops and corrections officers. Almost none of them really gave a rat's ass about "justice" or "society" or even making life for others better. They were basically high school educated nudniks who wanted to carry a gun and be able to punch people and have it be illegal for those people to punch back, and a job from which you could retire at less than 50 and get a pension, basically giving you a license to do nothing from then on if you wanted to. My friend eventually ended up turning out this very same way, and I saw a video of him punching a suspect, whose hands were bound and was laying on his stomach, punched him right in the face. The dude was defenseless. There's no reason to do that, not ever, I'm sorry. I'm not saying all cops are bad people, but none that I ever met were motivated by "the Law" or civil service. Same way most teachers now aren't motivated by "Education" as much as they're motivated by having summers off and a pension in many states. Doesn't mean they're bad or even that they can't be good educators or police, it just means that the intersection is accidental as much as anything else.
-->
@ludofl3x
Your rant describes the problems of public union lobbies. There's no will in America to do anything about them.
-->
@Greyparrot
he police officer is far more worried about criminal activity on society than personal safety
Oh please. Look up Warren v. District of Columbia. Or DeShaney vs. Winnebago. Or Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales.
When students at the Parkland, FL school tried to sue the police department over the cop's failure to protect them, the federal judge ruled that neither the Constitution nor state law impose a general duty upon police officers to protect people from harm — even when they know the harm will occur. Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not be accountable for that. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are in custody. Like George Floyd. They have no obligation to worry about "criminal activity on society" and often don't.
So what happens when police fail to protect and serve the public? Nothing. The taxpayers will still have to pay their taxes and submit to police agencies as lawful authority. And if the police act unlawfully while carrying out their duty, it's the taxpayers who will pay for that too. I agree with what you said before that no meaningful change occurs (though I'm optimistic we will make some progress). The senior leadership positions may change, but the enormous agency budgets will remain, the government agents themselves will continue to collect generous salaries and pensions despite their infractions, and bootlickers will still champion a police officer's monopoly on the use of force.
Everyone should be emphatic about the need for police reform.
-->
@Greyparrot
Okay, but that's not exactly "You're wrong" and I still don't know how driving my car away presents such potentially imminent bodily harm to a police officer as to justify being tased. Whether the problem stems from public unions or not, the problem I described vis a vis the common policeman's mentality still exists and still impacts lives in a very real way. Get rid of police unions, you'll get no argument from me.
-->
@Danielle
Everyone should be emphatic about the need for police reform.
Nice rant. Is your point that we should have more SCOTUS decisions mandating Officers like the Parkland Coward to make more arrests instead of saying "nah"?
Pretty sure less arrests is the whole point of defund the police movement.
The fact still remains every officer that chose to arrest a violent criminal chose to put his life on the line even if it wasn't mandated. If EVERY cop cared about themselves, no arrests of criminals demonstrating criminal behavior would ever be made. And indeed, in most liberal dystopias, most of the police just let them go cause black-on-black crime doesn't affect their job security.
-->
@Greyparrot
The fact still remains every officer that chose to arrest a violent criminal chose to put his life on the line even if it wasn't mandated. If EVERY cop cared about themselves, no arrests of criminals demonstrating criminal behavior would ever be made.
This seems a pretty unsurprising false dichotomy, like cops should be allowed the leeway to assault even non-violent criminals to the point where they're maimed or dead because this way all violent crime will stop, OR, abolish all laws and let anarchy reigns supreme and it's pretty much Arkham City. There's a very wide spectrum and room for a LOT of improvement in the way policing is done, there's plenty of space between the two extremes. Trying to pass off a fake $20 is a crime. It's not a crime you should be executed in the streets over. Speeding is a 'crime.' Being pulled over for speeding shouldn't mean "Let me get my camera set up to record, just in case this cop kills me."
Also, not that I agree with 'defund the police,' but the idea isn't LESS ARRESTS as I understand it. It's to take a different approach to law enforcement. Shouldn't "LESS ARRESTS" be society's goal to begin with? By way of less crime?
Just saw some jarring evidence. Appearantly Floyd weighed 300lbs and Chauvin weighed 140lbs. It would make more sense that there wasn't any bruises on his neck
I'm gonna say right now I'm a big dude, 6'3 1/2", 250lbs. Not the size of Floyd but still a bigger dude. I have friend that weight 120-130lbs who I've certainly had mock fights with. They never managed to injure me in anyway despite wrestling. Granted I was never choked for 9 minutes, but just some more jarring evidence
-->
@ludofl3x
Trying to pass off a fake $20 is a crime.
Sure, we can fine those criminals for felony conterfeit and they can pay the fine with counterfeit money. Sounds reasonable and functional.
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, okay, so you're not actually into an honest discussion, you'd rather straw man one sentence and say cool dismissive stuff like "nice rant" as a defense. Sorry, I misunderstood your intent.
-->
@Vader
I'm 6'2 250 lbs. I had my smaller roommate kneel on me, and it was a joke.
-->
@ludofl3x
Nah, I'll just go full retard with you and agree with you that we shouldn't arrest felons cause someone might die if the felon panics.
It's likely I have an extreme bias, but when George Floyd or Daunte Wright die, I just see an unfortunate accident.
Which is 'NOT me saying the police in said cases should NOT be held responsible.
But people of 'any race die,
I'm 'NOT saying that there isn't police bias, I am saying that it's difficult for me to see it.
Maybe that's an 'enormous flaw, but to me it feels 'any black individual who dies, some people immediately scream about police bigotry, and how protests and riots need to happen.
What about people of other races who die, what about innocent bystanders who have been hurt by riots, police, where's 'their outrage, their 'justice?
I find it difficult to respect an organization that appears to me to 'only care about it's own.
But, I 'am, interested in not being wrong,
I 'am interested in the truth, and what is right.
I'm 'pretty sure I'm missing the picture when I think, people die, that's unfortunate, now what about the living?
Perhaps I'd feel different if a family member of mine died, or I grew up somewhere else.
I 'am a 'bit colorblind though, didn't grow up in a racist place, but there 'were 'very few black people.
After that I entered the military for five years where though there may be racism, I never noticed it, and only ever had coworkers who respected each other with no mention of race.
Since I've been out, Covid's kept me inside. But I see plenty of black cops, when I look at data, poverty and living conditions are a reason for higher black deaths, due to higher crime.
I'm NOT saying all blacks are criminals, but that if a part of the population commits a higher rate of crime, they're going to get shot more.
Maybe this is a problem of the establishment reacting harsher then they should, perhaps it's a stereotype that influences higher rate of surveillance on blacks, rather than higher actual rate of crimes.
I 'do worry about being bigoted or wrong at times, though I don't 'think I am.
It just bothers me that 'some people seem 'so hyped to enact justice on Derek Chauvin,
"string him up for his crimes."
As HistoryBuff said in another forum, seemingly of his own sentiments.
I understand that race is a component in police interactions, that could be improved upon.
But I see 'very emotional people ranting and raving, fixated on racism like a dog with a bone.
Never mind any of the other 'hundreds of police shootings each year in which people die.
No, because some people are black, they 'must have been hate crimes, and thus the response 'must be much higher.
There must be close together mass protests, there must be riots (Not by BLM of course) just by people who voice the same complaint as us, but aren't part of our movement, there must be the highest possible penalty viewed and applied to 'anyone who shot 'these particular black people.
Who must have acted with the highest knowledge and understanding of their actions, 'impossible for them to make a mistake.
No need to think that s**t just happens sometimes.
No, a single death identified and newscast is a tragedy, and these fellows must be glorified, martyrized, admired, never mind their pasts.
. . .
Sarcasm by me of course,
Individuals deaths 'are tragedies,
There likely 'is some bias in police stop interactions that 'should be addressed.
Though I don't see why if there can be bias by 'police in stop interactions, there can't be bias by the 'people 'stopped in police interactions.
-->
@Greyparrot
My point is that police officers are primarily self-interested, and when they fail to competently provide the services they get paid to provide, there is no meaningful consequence which means there's no incentive to improve the status quo.
That's why everyone should be emphatic about police reform and support activists who are pushing for positive changes and accountability. Not surprisingly, the people who claim to lament Big Government, powerful lobbies, and the exploitation of public unions are often the ones who start cumming all over themselves regarding a cop's authority and believe they should all be obeyed blindly without question, hesitation or consequence under any circumstance. Very strange.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not going to stop the looting.
It makes sense to attack business owners. See the rioters feel threatened by cops, so that explains why it's justified to use violence against someone regarding the behavior of other people whose conduct the person has no control over.
I g2g (possibly til next week) but does anyone else find it fascinating the way cucks-for-cops have done a complete 180 since May regarding Chauvin's very obvious guilt? The talking point from them back then was "Chauvin was completely wrong which nobody denies, but that doesn't justify looting!!!" Now, the narrative they're going with is that Chauvin is actually NOT GUILTY just because Floyd was on drugs when he was victimized which is crazy. We always knew he was on drugs - the cops at the scene were clear about that. So while the defense has to make that argument, I'm truly shook by all these lickspittles now parroting that excuse despite all evidence to the contrary. The desire to go against anything supported by people who they don't agree with politically has completely rotted their brains and depleted all sense of morality, common sense and justice. Sad.
-->
@Danielle
the people who claim to lament Big Government, powerful lobbies, and the exploitation of public unions
well, those guys are obviously idiots because police unions ARE a powerful lobby. And lobbies are bad m'kay?
Chauvin is actually NOT GUILTY just because Floyd was on drugs when he was victimized which is crazy.
Nah, I was riding shotgun on the lynch bus for Chauvin right up until I saw the autopsy report with no evidence of any tissue damage AT ALL anywhere on his back or neck, not even occult trauma.
-->
@Danielle
It makes sense to attack business owners. See the rioters feel threatened by cops, so that explains why it's justified to use violence against someone regarding the behavior of other people whose conduct the person has no control over.
Grief shopping :D
-->
@Danielle
It makes sense to attack business owners.
It's in our genes. Remember the Boston Tea Party.
-->
@FLRW
"The midnight raid, popularly known as the “Boston Tea Party,” was in protest of the British Parliament's Tea Act of 1773, a bill designed to save the faltering East India Company by greatly lowering its tea tax and granting it a virtual monopoly on the American tea trade."
I never heard of the Wendy's Burger Bill.
-->
@FLRW
It's in our genes. Remember the Boston Tea Party.
I had no Idea all those minority businesses were being subsidized on the backs of those heavily taxed looters.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes. We are mad at the police officers for killing black men. Let's go rob the local Target to honor them! Steal from the shop owners for justice
-->
@HistoryBuff
what r ur thoughts now that the defense is making its case? my thought process was that at first he was innocent, then the prosecution gave its witnesses so i thought guilty, but now with the defense witnesses, i'm thinking it's just a "he said she said" of experts all contradicting each other. so what can a person really think but there's reasonable doubt to acquit? i admit i dont follow the case closely though, so there might be more to it. god knows the media sucks at reporting this stuff.
-->
@n8nrgmi
what r ur thoughts now that the defense is making its case?
I haven't really been paying attention to trial, so I haven't seen anything the defense has said. But there are tons of hacks out there that will say anything on the stand for the right amount of money. So I was completely expecting them to find "experts" who argue that crushing a man to death is totally normal, or whatever other bullshit they decided to spew.
If you honestly think the autopsy not explicitly saying 'asphyxiation' is some magic vindication, I guarantee you that you're not qualified in medicine or law and that you lack general knowledge surrounding the subject.
In forensic analysis, you do not always definitively know if asphyxiation was the cause of death. Unless the victim was directly strangled, the oxygen deprivation isn't always capable of autopsy-conclusive murder as a verdict.
What you then need to do is usually investigate clues but in this case that isn't needed much at all. You could physically view the murder for the first few hours before the video was removed due to graphic content and censorship.
This was a hate crime, a murder. To suggest otherwise is to say that the video and Floyd pleading to be able to breathe and the officer remaining on his chest, resting a huge portion of his entire body's weight is somehow unrelated.
If Floyd's drug intoxication and SARS residual infection played a role, that doesn't justify the officer offering 0 release at all, of pressure, despite Floyd literally saying he can't breathe.
Chauvin, as a bouncer, was known to be so hostile especially with non-whites, that he apparently got fired from his job, they just failed to list violence as the official reason, it came to light post-Floyd due to people investigating Chauvin's history.
There is absolutely nothing at all vindicating or discrediting the evidence and conclusion everyone drew originally. The autopsy didn't directly state asphyxiation because there was a lack of strangulation marks as well as not sign of plastic bag-over-mouth type restriction, which we already knew.