Biden Is KKK

[chrysostom]

It's hard not to wonder about motives at this point. The AG just bumped up the charges to 2nd degree murder, which to me is almost certain not to stick. Does he want no conviction and a 2nd round of riots???

[Ice_nine]

I think they gotta play the game smart here. Charge him with the sure thing. It is going to be incredibly difficult to prove intent to kill. The cop would have to be a real dunce to intentionally kill someone like that on camera. I mean maybe he is that stupid, but it's going to be a hard to prove, whereas proving his actions contributed to Floyd's death seems a lot more secure.

[chrysostom]

Right. That's why I'm getting a little suspicious. If he overshoots and doesn't get a 2nd-degree conviction, he ought to have known the chances ahead of time. The autopsy is still being debated. This is not a situation where the AG has room to screw up. So if he does, is it really a screw up?

[Lilllabettt]

4 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I think they gotta play the game smart here. Charge him with the sure thing. It is going to be incredibly difficult to prove intent to kill. The cop would have to be a real dunce to intentionally kill someone like that on camera. I mean maybe he is that stupid, but it's going to be a hard to prove, whereas proving his actions contributed to Floyd's death seems a lot more secure.

My husband says MPD force policy not only allows but explicitly encourages restraint by placing pressure on the back of the neck with an arm or knee.  

Almost all departments have updated their policy and training to forbid this practice. Due to risk of positional asphyxiation. MPD apparently had not gotten around to it. 

They will be lucky to get murder 3 imo. 

 

 

[Anomaly]

12 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I think they gotta play the game smart here. Charge him with the sure thing. It is going to be incredibly difficult to prove intent to kill. The cop would have to be a real dunce to intentionally kill someone like that on camera. I mean maybe he is that stupid, but it's going to be a hard to prove, whereas proving his actions contributed to Floyd's death seems a lot more secure.

What kind of fair justice is “playing the game” for an expected outcome to satisfy the emotions of the rabble?   Think of Ponticus Pilate asking the crowd to crucify Jesus or Barabas.

The arresting officers may all legitimately deserve time in jail.   Also, maybe the police chief and supervisors if they repeatedly turned a blind eye to police brutality. 

Maybe only police supervisors if the knee restraint was known to be dangerous, but that is how they trained and expected their officers to perform.   If the arresting officers were doing what they’ve been trained and permitted and expected to do for years, it was only a matter of time for a tragedy to happen. 

It’s not right to call for the officer’s heads and then figure out how best to give them the longest prison term whilst preventing real objectivity or impartiality.  

The legal system is not perfect, often biased, and can be prejudiced against minorities or protect bad cops, but it isn’t addressed properly or fixed by subversion of impartiality or warping justice.  Basic morality and ethics does not promote wrong to do right.  

[chrysostom]

Thanks for the truth check.

[Anastasia]

I was reading about what is going on in US and saw this and decided to share.

Orthodox Archbishop Elpidifor joins protests in Brooklyn. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Anastasia

[Ice_nine]

On 6/5/2020 at 8:19 AM, Anomaly said:

What kind of fair justice is “playing the game” for an expected outcome to satisfy the emotions of the rabble? 

oh sorry, I don't really see the justice system as fair, or even really close to fair. It's a lot better than most places in the world, sure, but it's still a game. There are rules, shortcuts, loopholes etc. If the other team is roided up, then you can be all noble and stick to protein shakes, but you're going to lose.

I'm not even calling for outright cheating. But I mean there is still strategy involved. That's the reality. If you see that as a breach of justice then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it is. But it's not getting fixed overnight so you gotta play in the arena as it is.

 

On 6/5/2020 at 1:37 AM, Lilllabettt said:

My husband says MPD force policy not only allows but explicitly encourages restraint by placing pressure on the back of the neck with an arm or knee.  

Almost all departments have updated their policy and training to forbid this practice. Due to risk of positional asphyxiation. MPD apparently had not gotten around to it. 

They will be lucky to get murder 3 imo.

 

I'm sorry, but how is "this is how I was trained," a valid excuse? It's a small step away from "I was just following orders." Were they also trained to keep the pressure after the perp loses consciousness? If I as a private citizen did this to someone, why would there be MORE accountability for me? Shouldn't the police, who are given enormous power to protect and serve the public, have a higher degree of accountability? That is garbage

[Aloysius]

If they were just "playing the game" because they wanted to appease the crowds, then you'd be right Anomaly.  But if we're talking about prosecutors who actually believe the officers are guilty and should be punished, then yes when you go to a trial it absolutely is about 'playing the game'... we're talking about whether they should go for 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree based on what they think they can get to stick.  Don't go for 1st because you can't prove premeditation (and with this we can say instead of just playing the game, also don't go for 1st because there probably wasn't premeditation), and then the question is should you go for 2nd?  The point is that even if the prosecutor thinks the officer had malice aforethought, they have to "play the game" as to whether they feel they can PROVE that or not, if they don't think they can prove that they should go for 3rd degree.  And sure, there's an argument whether they should just go for manslaughter instead of 3rd degree--the first part of that argument is whether the prosecutor thinks they're guilty based on the evidence they see, then the second part of that argument is playing the game--charge them with the highest charge you think they're guilty of AND you think you can prove to a jury.

I've seen plenty of former cops coming out and clearly indicating disgust with this video  For any normal person watching it, you can't come out and say that cop was not doing something wrong if not at first then AT LEAST at the point where Floyd was unresponsive, it makes no sense for him to continue with his knee on that neck.  At the very least IMO that's depraved indifference and manslaughter.

if he was trained to do that, then yes there's a bigger problem.  but yeah I have to echo that you can't just fall back on just following orders here, even if you're trained to restrain people that way, he had that knee on the guy's neck for 8 or 9 minutes, keeping it on there well after the guy was non-responsive.  there's no justification for that.  when people say to play the game and try to get the highest charge that will stick, those are people who have seen the video and believe the guy to be guilty.  if you're not convinced of that then fine, it is for a jury to decide, I'm worried that he will get off (and I actually support a system that makes it hard for people to be convicted as the one we have does, although that system might help this guy that I think is guilty get off, I still support that system).

[Lilllabettt]

7 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

oh sorry, I don't really see the justice system as fair, or even really close to fair. It's a lot better than most places in the world, sure, but it's still a game. There are rules, shortcuts, loopholes etc. If the other team is roided up, then you can be all noble and stick to protein shakes, but you're going to lose.

I'm not even calling for outright cheating. But I mean there is still strategy involved. That's the reality. If you see that as a breach of justice then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it is. But it's not getting fixed overnight so you gotta play in the arena as it is.

 

I'm sorry, but how is "this is how I was trained," a valid excuse? 

Morally, it's not valid. Legally ...

To be a morally "good" cop you have to know when to ignore your training, break the rules, or even the law, when "the right thing" is wrong. They can't write policy for every thing you are likely to encounter. 

Have you seen malcolm in the middle. It's a show from the 2000s following a family with 3 boys. One of the boys, a sort of dumb troublemaker, is sent to military academy. He excels as a grunt, because he does exactly what he is told - to absolute perfection. Eventually he is rewarded with responsibility for a small group during war games. At that point he loses it and completely melts down, because he is incapable of applying his brain flexibly. 

Frankly a lot of cops - not all but many - turn off their brains and become robots to CYA. There's a fatalism in law enforcement - the idea that whatever you do or don't do, your turn will come, your number will be called, it will be you on the hot seat, eventually. If you happen to not be following policy when that happens, it is curtains for you. 

Is that this person? Doubtful. Cops in CYA mode are hyper aware of how things look.  Most likely imo he is an a**hole who got annoyed that Floyd was refusing to go in the police car and decided to "tune him up" a bit. Oh you want to lay on the ground? Ok fine. How does it feel? This is the same cop who puts the handcuffs on tighter than necessary.  This is the therapist who gets pissed at a patient and sort of threatens to diagnose them as borderline, ie "maybe you're borderline." This is the parent who punishes a child for reason X - which seems reasonable and understandable - but the real reason for the punishment is Y - something petty and arbitrary. People in relationships do this to each other as well - on an emotional level. 

It's abusive and yet within the parameters of what is expected and permitted the person in their role. So, not being in their head it's difficult to prove. It might not be entirely at the conscious level even to that person. 

Once again that hold is not within allowed parameters for most departments. But there it is, or was, supposedly.  Imo they will be lucky to get murder 3. And perhaps that is what they are going for. I believe he is charged with 2nd, 3rd and manslaughter so perhaps they are hoping a jury will split the difference between lo and high.

 

 

 

 

[Luigi]

On 6/5/2020 at 7:19 AM, Anomaly said:

What kind of fair justice is “playing the game” for an expected outcome to satisfy the emotions of the rabble?  

If you expect justice to come out of the courts, you need to adjust your expectations. I refuse to call it "the justice system" because that's as misnomer. I call it the court system, or the legal system, but never the justice system. 

[little2add]

How would defunding to police help law and order?

the very suggestion is ludicrous

 

 

 

[little2add]

 

[chrysostom]

I'm still trying to wrestle with what's going on.

BLM as a political movement is organised/led by extreme left radicals who throw some other things into the trunk: opposition to "heteronormativity", the traditional family structure, private property ownership. Just take a look at the BLM website's value statements.

Of course black lives matter, and racial prejudice still exists - people are not by nature colourblind. BLM is certainly supported by many people of good will who agree that black lives matter and that killings and racism ought to end. But I disagree vehemently with the critical race theory embraced by many or most activists.

Edited June 8, 2020 by chrysostom

[little2add]

2 hours ago, chrysostom said:

critical race theory

I believe in the “I’ve got a dream” theory by MLK