The Derek Chauvin Trial

None of that applies to me.

This, on the other hand:
"And it's never okay to be a hypocrite / engage in double standards while using flawed arguments."
Describes your behavior perfectly.

You recently falsely accused me of focusing on minutia of definitions even though you are the one who was actually making that flawed argument.



I still do.



Your false accusations of racism are outrageous, and I'm not going to humor them by pretending to take them seriously.



Sure I could take your false accusations of racism seriously. But I'm not going to.

I choose not to, and that choice is not going to change.

I just read a story in Medium that compared and contrasted the writer’s feelings about TV’s Columbo with his impressions of police today. The angle was that Columbo was an Everyman going only after the rich and powerful (and white, save for two episodes involving an Arab played by Hector Elizondo and a Spanish bullfighter played by Ricardo Montalban). On the other hand, the writer posited, he perceived today’s police as directing their ‘policing’ mostly at unpowerful, non-white poor people.


It was a fascinating juxtaposition. I had never thought about Columbo as a champion of regular folks “ sticking it to the man “. I have always liked Columbo - will still occasionally watch and enjoy an old episode - but the thought that one reason I might like him is because he was always taking the rich and powerful (and white) down a couple of notches and putting them in prison was an interesting notion.

Another angle the story explored was, it asked the question “What would Columbo have done?”. If he had seen a patrolman kneeling on a black man’s neck as he begged for mercy, until he died - would Columbo intervene?

There is an inescapable dissonance between our collective image of the modern cop as good and decent protector and servant of the people, and the image that keeps getting captured on videos of irrational, insecure, violent bullies preying on poor non-whites.

The story ends with this paragraph:



A devastating statement, to be sure - but inescapable in it’s logic, and undeniably relevant to issues with police we currently are facing. How can we consider cops “good” if they remain silent when they see their colleagues commit crimes?

If we’re honest, I don’t believe we can really call those silent cops “good”. They seem largely to either be bad - the ones committing the crimes; or silent - they witness or are aware of the crimes their peers commit, and say nothing.

The glaring exceptions that prove the rule are precious few - like the cops who came forward to effectively call Chauvin a murderer...
And maybe Serpico.

I am very interested, to say the least, about what happens in the trials of Chauvin’s three accomplices. I think the results could have very significant ramifications that affect this country’s view of cops, and just what a “good cop” is.

I’m also interested to hear most others’ thoughts on these things. The thoughts and comments of those who have never and will never acknowledge that a cop is bad- like Oralloy - don’t matter.

For Columbo to work, the criminals just about have to have the resources and background of manipulating people, which most of the poor don't have. They have to be relatively intelligent - educated - to give him a challenge. Columbo could never be a uniformed officer doing regular cop work in my opinion.
I think studios mostly want cops idealized because they support policing as it exists. There are exceptions, such as Sipowitz on NYPD Blue, but even he eventually comes around.

Of course Columbo wouldn’t work if he was a uniformed cop hassling poor people. That was no where near the point of my post. It was that Columbo was a good cop, and one of the reasons some might have subconsciously liked him is because he stuck it to the rich and powerful. And another point was the statement that cops are by and large either bad or silent. And that ‘outing’ and prosecuting the silent cops might move things forward.

Your claim that I will never acknowledge a bad cop is another one of your many lies.

And since I can back my views with facts and logic, while you can only back your views with lies and name-calling, my views actually carry far more weight than your views do.

I never saw him as sticking it to the rich and powerful. Just a cop dedicated to his profession. I don't claim to know better than anyone else, but that has always been my take. He operates in a reality where watching bad cops and being silent about it doesn't fit in. His is an idealized reality.

Cops who let other cops get away with it are complicit and should be brought in as in the Chauvin case as a matter of course. All part of the restructuring of police so many are pushing for.

I don't see how first-week rookies who challenge a senior officer and are overruled are letting him get away with something.

What were they supposed to have done to stop him?

Ending ‘Qualified Immunity’ For Police Was Key To Texas’ George Floyd Act. It Went Nowhere In The Legislature
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/criminal-justice/2021/05/17/398133/george-floyd-act-dead-for-the-session/?fbclid=IwAR1__0C6k5u9ItpQ_cwqZHGJsy17ST9iT7sQriU9DCLTZJQPLoeXZe5efhI

I'm not clicking on any links with a "Facebook Click ID" still attached to them.

Pretty soon everyone on a2k is going to start having their full names revealed to each other in Facebook friend recommendations.

I find this to not be 'inescapable in its logic', and in fact - very problematic, for it implies all cops - and this is plainly implicit from the first quote. Simple fact is, if all cops were bad, there would be a much, much worse problem than currently exists.

I find it problematic because it is a reflection of what is complained about - treating all of a group of people as if they are guilty / dangerous / less trustworthy etc.

I have no issue when qualifiers are used:
- too many
- to high a percentage

But implying all...is use of the same blanket judgement that is complained about. As you know, blanket judgements create resistance, because the good people object to being judged with the criminals based purely on their groupings. They then dismiss or rail against such, and stop listenning. So it works against problem solving.

When police stop seeing certain peoples as fully human (ie. individuals that must be judged on their own merits, with valid reasons why they do things, values that underpin what they do, deserving of respect etc)...they start engaging in biased and prejudiced behaviours.

...the exact same principle works in reverse. No group should ever have blanket statements made about them (or it should be implicitly very clear that it is only a generic statement, not applicable to all)

-------------------------------------

Here in Australia, or at least Queensland where I live, I remember reading an article where there is a high degree of self reporting, and reporting by other officers, and that the self reporting level had been growing.

But we had a couple of important Royal Commissions many years ago, and had independent bodies set up to investigate police & political corruption, and the police internal investigations department grew, etc.

And they are all issued body worn video cameras, and a police officer not reporting misconduct by another police officer is now a serious internal offence.

---------------------

That is to point out that cultural issues & internal reward/punishment systems obviously can significantly affect self-reporting levels.

If I had to guess at how to improve the police culture in the US:

1. Create a centralised training standards, and mandate that all recruit training must include set training modules:
- throughout any use of force training, excessive use of force must be covered each day

2. Create centralised rookie / 1st year training standards
- as part of their on the job training during their first year, and particularly during (say) their first half of the year - require them to submit an example of appropriate use of force for a job they attended, and an example of what would not be an appropriate use of force, and articulate why
- doing this not only makes them think about what is appropriate, but puts in writing for each officer what is not appropriate

3. Make it a serious internal offence (up to sacking) for not reporting misconduct (which can include excessive use of force)

4. Centralise complaints against police.
- a single federal agency (maybe within the FBI)
- receives all training data and personnel history
- has access to all body worn footage
- mandate access to other things (precint / station, computer systems etc) where necessary

First level would be complaint to your local police commander, second level if you are unhappy would be to go to the federal body.

Perhaps you have something like that (I understand there is some State Body that has ability to investigate criminal complaints against police), but the above suggests a federal compliance regime.

By the way, in suggesting this - I obviously don't know how your Federal and State bodies interact, so I am not even sure it is possible legally - much of it would be possible here, but the rules could no doubt be different there.

Andrew Brown Jr. Shooting: Prosecutor Says It Was 'Justified'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/andrew-brown-jr-shooting-prosecutor-says-it-was-justified/ar-BB1gS5wU?li=BBnb7Kz
We can only hope the feds take it up, looks like.

Yeah I watched that goofy Elizabeth City DA stand there and bullshit for 2 hours on National TV. Bottom line is he showed only bits and pieces of the 2 hours of body cam footage they have - narrating it at that. It was a prepared PowerPoint-type presentation all for purpose of concluding that there was no crime, and that the killing was justified. The stench of the cover-up is overwhelming.

So, yeah. Hopefully Merrick Garland and/or his reenergized civil rights division can do something.

I'm sure they'll look at the case. They will only bring charges though if they see actual wrongdoing.

A while back here, it used to be lawful for police to shoot an offender fleeing a life imprisonment offence. I don't think the law exists here anymore, but similar laws may still exist around the world, where they haven't been repealed. That may be what they mean by justified.

Texas law explicitly allows civilians to lie in wait and shoot fleeing thieves in the back to prevent the loss of property.

It does not have to be the shooter's own property that is being saved.

https://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas/

Do you guys have anything like a Coronial Inquest? Here, every unnatural death goes to the coroner, who may order an inquest, including at the request of the family. Such inquests are public. The coroner has powers to order any evidence be presented to the court, including any evidence the police have.

That is to say - if you have anything similar, then the 'coverup' would be uncovered in a public inquest.

That's different...

It's my understanding Brown was not attempting to flee until after the police began firing.

No, shooting a fleeing subject is NOT legal here. The Elizabeth City DA is trying to say that it was justified because all those cops pumping bullets into the car from all angles “felt threatened “, and so had reasonable justification to use deadly force. It’s a *******
sham.

<edit>
I stand corrected. There is such a thing as the Fleeing Felon Rule.
I guess cops can shoot you for almost any damn thing at all.