11
   

The Derek Chauvin Trial

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  7  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2021 08:17 pm
@snood,
Who wants to make it a crime to insult a policeman? Only a kook would propose such a thing. I really need to see a citation for this bill.
BillW
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2021 08:19 pm
@snood,
Quote:
A law that makes it legal to mow down protesters with a motor vehicle if they are blocking a street (this would excuse things like the murder of Heather Heyer who was run over by James Fields during a BLM protest 4 years ago)

BTW, one of these killings happened just a couple of months ago, not as news worthy as Heyer killing though. This one just took my breath away!

It is probably a throw away part of the legislation to get final law passed.
snood
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2021 08:38 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Who wants to make it a crime to insult a policeman? Only a kook would propose such a thing. I really need to see a citation for this bill.


Google is your friend
https://www.wave3.com/2021/03/05/kentucky-bill-would-make-it-crime-insult-taunt-police-officers/
Mame
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2021 08:53 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

It still just seems to me that White people - even the well intentioned ones - have an extremely hard time believing that Black people are treated differently by law enforcement than they are. It’s like they see individual cases like (insert any one of dozens of brutalized blacks that made national news), but they somehow just
can’t fathom - can’t accept - that this is longstanding and systemic.


Sorry this is so long.

I don't have a hard time believing it because it happens in Canada with regularity. We don't have a large Black population, but we have plenty of First Nations people.

"The missing and murdered Indigenous women (MMIW) human-rights crisis disproportionately affects Indigenous peoples in Canada and the United States, notably those in the FNMI (First Nations, Métis, Inuit) and Native American communities.[1][2][3][4] A corresponding mass movement in the US and Canada works to raise awareness of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (MMIWG) through organized marches; the building of databases; local community, city council, and tribal council meetings; and domestic violence trainings for police.[5]

MMIW has been described as a Canadian national crisis[6][7][8] and a Canadian genocide.[9][10][11][12][13] In response to repeated calls from Indigenous groups, activists, and non-governmental organizations, the Government of Canada under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau established a national public inquiry, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, in September 2016.[14][15] According to the inquiry's backgrounder, between the years 1980 and 2012, Indigenous women and girls represented 16% of all female homicides in Canada, while constituting only 4% of the female population in Canada.[16] The inquiry was completed and presented to the public on June 3, 2019.[14]

Full article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_and_murdered_Indigenous_women

First Nations have been treated horribly. There are communities without safe drinking water (under a boil water advisory). Their houses were hastily built and are in terrible disrepair. Because they are in remote communities, the price of food and other necessities are exorbitant. They don't have decent, if any, wifi in some communities. Because of their remoteness, they usually just have a nurse in a clinic and have to fly to get more serious medical treatment. This has been going on for years.

Before that, we interned the Japanese during WWII and stole their belongings. Before that, we mistreated the Chinese, and had a head tax.

I cringe when I think about what our people has done to other people, particularly those who were here before us. We needed the Chinese to build our railway. We kicked the First Nations off their land. We stole their children and put them in residential schools that were cruel. They were denied their language and their culture.

I wonder what kind of psychological testing recruits have to go through, and if there is ongoing counselling for them. I mean, I'm sure they have counselling available, but do any of them use it?

BillW
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2021 08:59 pm
@BillW,
BillW wrote:

Quote:
A law that makes it legal to mow down protesters with a motor vehicle if they are blocking a street (this would excuse things like the murder of Heather Heyer who was run over by James Fields during a BLM protest 4 years ago)

BTW, one of these killings happened just a couple of months ago, not as news worthy as Heyer killing though. This one just took my breath away!

It is probably a throw away part of the legislation to get final law passed.

Okay, I slightly understated this crime, there were 93 incidents here alone:

List of vehicle-ramming incidents during George Floyd protests

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vehicle-ramming_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests<br />
snood
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2021 09:37 pm
@BillW,
Damn. I had no idea there were so many.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 02:00 am
@snood,
Quote:
When police investigate police (or even when the local DA’s office does an investigation- DA’s and police work in cahoots too often) there is never anything done.
You can't say there is never anything done - there appear to have been multiple police charged in the US over the last year - which is the most either police or the DA can do when investigating police. But the convictions appear few and far between.

That aside, I can't think of another agency / career that would be qualified to conduct investigations of such a nature. Accountants need to investigate accountants (well, their books really), doctors need to investigate doctors (the decision making and skills process), and it appears police (or DA investigators) would need to investigate police because no other person would have the required skills, knowledge, and comprehension of the issues.

In the State I live in, in Australia, we have an institution that has standing Royal Commission powers (that can coerce you to answer questions) created to stop corruption in government/police/public servants. It has investigative responsibilities - and all their investigators are ex police, or lawyers that work closely with ex-police, because they can't find other people with the investigative skills necessary to the roles.

0 Replies
 
Joeblow
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 04:12 am
@snood,
My recent comments were more a shout to the universe than disagreement with the possibilty. And I simply don't know enough to hazzard a firm guess, but my take is more than that Snood. And significantly more would NOT surprise me. "It is not enough that justice be done, it must be seen to be done."
vikorr
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 05:01 am
@Joeblow,
Quote:
"It is not enough that justice be done, it must be seen to be done."
Are you saying they should market justice better? No issue with that.

But if you are saying that a person should be charged so that justice can be seen to be done - then there is every likelihood that the person being charged (or convicted) will have a different standard of proof applied to them in (in being charged, or convicted)....which would be unfair...meaning justice (which must be even handed) wouldn't actually be done.

I agree with the sentiment, but the application is problematic.

Don't get me wrong. I support police. I'm also horrified at some of the killings that have gone on. I also think the justice system is designed in a way that is meant to prevent innocent people going to jail - and where there is any reasonable doubt, conviction isn't possible...meaning it will always be incredibly difficult to convict police officers. To me, all of these things exist at the same time.
Brandon9000
 
  8  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 05:05 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Who wants to make it a crime to insult a policeman? Only a kook would propose such a thing. I really need to see a citation for this bill.


Google is your friend
https://www.wave3.com/2021/03/05/kentucky-bill-would-make-it-crime-insult-taunt-police-officers/

This is intolerable, ignorant, and unconstitutional. The only limitation on speech I could accept would be against an invocation to imminent violence like "Kill him."
hightor
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 05:10 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
This is intolerable, ignorant, and unconstitutional.

What do you think about making it legal to run over political protestors?
vikorr
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 05:11 am
@Brandon9000,
What about:
- defamation
- intimidating witnesses
- threats of violence (not imminent)
- organised hate groups, actively promoting violence against xxxx
- Cyber bullying that drives a teenager to suicide
- domestically violent / severe emotional abuse
- addict parents encouraging their child to do drugs
- etc

Region Philbis
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 05:15 am
@hightor,
Quote:
What do you think about making it legal to run over political protestors?
that one is so absurd that it might as well have come from The Onion...
Joeblow
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 06:37 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Are you saying they should market justice better? No issue with that.


No, but I'll give that idea some thought Smile

___

I had all kinds of things in mind when I posted that. The origin of the statement... some of the things Snood said earlier about how he viewed the judge... that I would find such a minimal sentence to be grossly unjust...

I'll add that I'm hoping that this is a watershed
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  6  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 07:09 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

What about:
- defamation Illegal
- intimidating witnesses Illegal
- threats of violence (not imminent) Depends on details
- organised hate groups, Legal
actively promoting violence against xxxx Only if imminent
- Cyber bullying that drives a teenager to suicide Illegal
- domestically violent / severe emotional abuse Legal
- addict parents encouraging their child to do drugs Illegal depending on specifics
- etc


edgarblythe
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 07:31 am
I'm finished speculating. Waiting for his accomplices to come to trial.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 07:43 am
@Region Philbis,
Region Philbis wrote:

Quote:
What do you think about making it legal to run over political protestors?
that one is so absurd that it might as well have come from The Onion...

Wish it had!

Contentious Oklahoma bill to protect drivers who run over protesters signed into law

https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/contentious-oklahoma-bill-to-protect-drivers-who-run-over-protesters-signed-into-law/
revelette3
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 10:35 am
@BillW,
I don't know how conservatives can talk about leftist and democrats going over the mark. That law is just insane. Next the thing you know it will be legal to shoot protesters in the streets, what is the difference?
hightor
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 10:52 am
(apologies for posting an un-Chauvinist article in this thread)

The G.O.P. Is Getting Even Worse

Trumpians are having a venomous panic attack.

Quote:
Those of us who had hoped America would calm down when we no longer had Donald Trump spewing poison from the Oval Office have been sadly disabused. There are increasing signs that the Trumpian base is radicalizing. My Republican friends report vicious divisions in their churches and families. Republican politicians who don’t toe the Trump line are speaking of death threats and menacing verbal attacks.

It’s as if the Trump base felt some security when their man was at the top, and that’s now gone. Maybe Trump was the restraining force.

What’s happening can only be called a venomous panic attack. Since the election, large swathes of the Trumpian right have decided America is facing a crisis like never before and they are the small army of warriors fighting with Alamo-level desperation to ensure the survival of the country as they conceive it.

The first important survey data to understand this moment is the one pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson discussed with my colleague Ezra Klein. When asked in late January if politics is more about “enacting good public policy” or “ensuring the survival of the country as we know it,” 51 percent of Trump Republicans said survival; only 19 percent said policy.

The level of Republican pessimism is off the charts. A February Economist-YouGov poll asked Americans which statement is closest to their view: “It’s a big, beautiful world, mostly full of good people, and we must find a way to embrace each other and not allow ourselves to become isolated” or “Our lives are threatened by terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants, and our priority should be to protect ourselves.”

Over 75 percent of Biden voters chose “a big, beautiful world.” Two-thirds of Trump voters chose “our lives are threatened.”

This level of catastrophism, nearly despair, has fed into an amped-up warrior mentality.

“The decent know that they must become ruthless. They must become the stuff of nightmares,” Jack Kerwick writes in the Trumpian magazine American Greatness. “The good man must spare not a moment to train, in both body and mind, to become the monster that he may need to become in order to slay the monsters that prey upon the vulnerable.”

With this view, the Jan. 6 insurrection was not a shocking descent into lawlessness but practice for the war ahead. A week after the siege, nearly a quarter of Republicans polled said violence can be acceptable to achieve political goals. William Saletan of Slate recently rounded up the evidence showing how many Republican politicians are now cheering the Jan. 6 crowd, voting against resolutions condemning them.

Liberal democracy is based on a level of optimism, faith and a sense of security. It’s based on confidence in the humanistic project: that through conversation and encounter, we can deeply know each other across differences; that most people are seeking the good with different opinions about how to get there; that society is not a zero-sum war, but a conversation and a negotiation.

As Leon Wieseltier writes in the magazine Liberties, James Madison was an optimist and a pessimist at the same time, a realist and an idealist. Philosophic liberals — whether on the right side of the political spectrum or the left — understand people have selfish interests, but believe in democracy and open conversation because they have confidence in the capacities of people to define their own lives, to care for people unlike themselves, to keep society progressing.

With their deep pessimism, the hyperpopulist wing of the G.O.P. seems to be crashing through the floor of philosophic liberalism into an abyss of authoritarian impulsiveness. Many of these folks are no longer even operating in the political realm. The G.O.P. response to the Biden agenda has been anemic because the base doesn’t care about mere legislation, just their own cultural standing.

Over the last decade or so, as illiberalism, cancel culture and all the rest have arisen within the universities and elite institutions on the left, dozens of publications and organizations have sprung up. They have drawn a sharp line between progressives who believe in liberal free speech norms, and those who don’t.

There are new and transformed magazines and movements like American Purpose, Persuasion, Counterweight, Arc Digital, Tablet and Liberties that point out the excesses of the social justice movement and distinguish between those who think speech is a mutual exploration to seek truth and those who think speech is a structure of domination to perpetuate systems of privilege.

This is exactly the line-drawing that now confronts the right, which faces a more radical threat. Republicans and conservatives who believe in the liberal project need to organize and draw a bright line between themselves and the illiberals on their own side. This is no longer just about Trump the man, it’s about how you are going to look at reality — as the muddle its always been, or as an apocalyptic hellscape. It’s about how you pursue change — through the conversation and compromise of politics, or through intimidations of macho display.

I can tell a story in which the Trumpians self-marginalize or exhaust themselves. Permanent catastrophism is hard. But apocalyptic pessimism has a tendency to deteriorate into nihilism, and people eventually turn to the strong man to salve the darkness and chaos inside themselves.

nyt/brooks
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2021 10:55 am
Why Derek Chauvin got convicted

Quote:
So what made Derek Chauvin's case different?

From the beginning, the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, has stood on its own as a uniquely disturbing police killing in a sea of disturbing police killings.

It was captured in clear and intimate video by bystanders and the officers' body cameras. It lasted over 9 minutes rather than a few seconds. Police officials across the country came together to denounce his actions as excessive. And making it all the more upsetting was Chauvin's impassive facial expressions and body language throughout.


A lot more to read along the same lines.

What I want to know is why the police seem to shoot first as a matter of course in most cases? I mean I get why they might be arrested if they have a warrant out on the them, but why would two or three police officers open fire on a run away suspect in a car? Isn't there another alternative? (Talking of the Brown case I read about this morning.)

'We're asking for answers': Protesters, family demand release of bodycam video in fatal shooting of Andrew Brown Jr.

Adam Toledo, Daunte Wright and George Floyd: Would more de-escalation training stop police from killing people?

Racial inequity in fatal US police shootings, 2015–2020
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 11:20:36