Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 03, 2020, 01:27:02 pm
-
In order not to derail the already outdated thread on the Chinese virus, i am starting the much more interesting, more contemporary one on the riots and looting.
The same guys who are currently engaged in violence and criminal behavior are apparently protesting against being stereotyped for violence and criminal behavior. You can't make this stuff up.
"African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population...a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.
The Myth of Systemic Police Racism
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883?fbclid=IwAR2WHH-XRXHspvqV_doNUv7Tai68Eo6jfO70LTFvgEwt_pQ--XOtxkvE61I
-
I though the links was clear, but, ok...
https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/ (https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/)
This link contains data from an ongoing Stanford study of outcomes from police interactions with blacks and Hispanics, compared to whites.
-
In order not to derail the already outdated thread on the Chinese virus, i am starting the much more interesting, more contemporary one on the riots and looting.
The same guys who are currently engaged in violence and criminal behavior are apparently protesting against being stereotyped for violence and criminal behavior. You can't make this stuff up.
The Myth of Systemic Police Racism
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883?fbclid=IwAR2WHH-XRXHspvqV_doNUv7Tai68Eo6jfO70LTFvgEwt_pQ--XOtxkvE61I
show me ( us ) the statistics- the source...
I am not willing to sign in and to read the article...
-
show me ( us ) the statistics- the source...
I did show you the statistics, but I will repeat:
"African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population...a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.
The source is in the article. Sorry if you can not read it.
-
Here are the links mentioned in the article, for those who can not read the WSJ:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877: Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings
https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/cops-w0753-pub.pdf: An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department
-
Here are the links mentioned in the article, for those who can not read the WSJ:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877: Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings
https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/cops-w0753-pub.pdf: An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department
These do nothing to disprove the existence of systemic racism. At best they attempt to justify it.
-
These do nothing to disprove the existence of systemic racism. At best they attempt to justify it.
;D ;D ;D
It would be a systemic racism if blacks are 25% of the victims of police killings (while 13% demographics) and there is no other factor to explain it, but the skin color. But there is another factor: being disproportionally engaged in criminal behavior and disproportionally being cop killers.
-
Army on Washington DC streets today:
-
;D ;D ;D
It would be a systemic racism if blacks are 25% of the victims of police killings (while 13% demographics) and there is no other factor to explain it, but the skin color. But there is another factor: being disproportionally engaged in criminal behavior and disproportionally being cop killers.
Begging the question... A system that disproportionately stops, arrests, accuses, and convicts based on race cannot use the number of those tainted convictions to escape accusations of bias. Go check out the Stanford data and get back to me...
-
In order not to derail the already outdated thread on the Chinese virus, i am starting the much more interesting, more contemporary one on the riots and looting.
The same guys who are currently engaged in violence and criminal behavior are apparently protesting against being stereotyped for violence and criminal behavior. You can't make this stuff up.
The Myth of Systemic Police Racism
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883?fbclid=IwAR2WHH-XRXHspvqV_doNUv7Tai68Eo6jfO70LTFvgEwt_pQ--XOtxkvE61I
In that other thread, you made statements that more or less asserted that the Houston police chief must be a liberal (or Democrat supporter) because of his Hispanic family background (Cuban rather than Mexican, in his case). That wasn't your exact phrasing but it's the meaning that I took away. How do you square that position with the idea that there is no such thing as systemic racism?
This is doubly confusing to me because given the year that the police chief's parents left Cuba for the US, 1968, there was a pretty chance that his parents were not Castro supporters, so possibly not liberal-minded at all. Also, Mr. Acevedo has pursued a long career in law enforcement, not your typical liberal occupation (although that's a bit presumptuous on my part, isn't it).
-
I though the links was clear, but, ok...
https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/ (https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/)
This link contains data from an ongoing Stanford study of outcomes from police interactions with blacks and Hispanics, compared to whites.
James, those graphs! I had to desist at the MaryJane ones: all those spikes were too much for my eyes to cope with and made me think that perhaps that's what a bad trip looks like.
-
... How do you square that position with the idea that there is no such thing as systemic racism?...
I am not sure I understand the question? What does that sheriff have to do with "systemic racism" (I am putting it in quotation marks as I take the position it doesn't exist)?
Had I known he is Cuban, I probably wouldn't say what I said, as I would have the same preconception as you have, i.e., that he might be more of an anti communist as a Cuban fleeing Castro. I guess being raised through the US school system dominated by liberals can easily change the parental influence. An exception among Cubans, I'd say. Though, in all fairness, I am not aware of any stats regarding party affiliation among Cuban Americans. Maybe it is 50/50, I don't know.
-
Begging the question... A system that disproportionately stops, arrests, accuses, and convicts based on race cannot use the number of those tainted convictions to escape accusations of bias. Go check out the Stanford data and get back to me...
The Stanford study just confirms what I posted in these forums several years ago: the observer effect - "the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon." In other words, knowing that cops will observe them, that they will be stopped and frisked and their car searched, changes their behavior into not carrying drugs or guns with them. So the results are not proving they are less criminal, just that they are more cautious of being caught red handed.
-
This promises to be a chicken v. egg debate.
It makes me think of the situation where guys of Middle Eastern appearance object and claim victimisation because they get searched at airports. Duh! Who else is likely to be carrying explosives aboard? How many cases have been reported of other people trying to commit suicide and murder by aircraft apart, that is, from the German nutcase who was in fear of losing his job because of failing eyesight and took it upon himself to dive into a mountain? Unfortunately, the rest of us are now saddled with the same travelling inconveniences of searches. It's one of the reason I no longer fly and if I can't go somewhere by car don't bother. No, I am not obsessed with a fear of flying. I have flown quite a lot. As passenger, I hasten to add, in case even that gets twisted.
:-)
-
There are lots of police stoppings here in Mallorca. I have been stopped (my daughter was passenger) on my birthday, of all days, but I see no problem with that. They check your licence, your current ITV/MOT certificate and for a valid insurance policy. Seems a good thing to do and keeps car owners a little more honest.
I was once pulled over by a local cop on a scooter because he mistook my US vanity plate for a licence plate. By the time he realise he'd screwed up and that all he was looking at was a website address, it was too late for both of us and he couldn't allow himself to back down. So he "advised" me to remove it.
C'est la guerre.
-
The Stanford study just confirms what I posted in these forums several years ago: the observer effect - "the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon." In other words, knowing that cops will observe them, that they will be stopped and frisked and their car searched, changes their behavior into not carrying drugs or guns with them. So the results are not proving they are less criminal, just that they are more cautious of being caught red handed.
So.. the fact that they are caught committing MORE crimes is proof they are guilty, and the fact that they are caught committing FEWER crimes is ALSO proof that they are guilty. Got it.
-
In that other thread, you made statements that more or less asserted that the Houston police chief must be a liberal (or Democrat supporter) because of his Hispanic family background (Cuban rather than Mexican, in his case). That wasn't your exact phrasing but it's the meaning that I took away. How do you square that position with the idea that there is no such thing as systemic racism?
This is doubly confusing to me because given the year that the police chief's parents left Cuba for the US, 1968, there was a pretty chance that his parents were not Castro supporters, so possibly not liberal-minded at all. Also, Mr. Acevedo has pursued a long career in law enforcement, not your typical liberal occupation (although that's a bit presumptuous on my part, isn't it).
Art is not a friend or personal acquaintance of mine, but he is both to many in my close circle of friends. He was highly regarded across the spectrum when he was Chief here in Austin. The idea that he's just "a Mexican that hates Trump" is patently absurd, and I'd suggest you devote no more time to arguing with sort of stupid assertion.
-
So.. the fact that they are caught committing MORE crimes is proof they are guilty, and the fact that they are caught committing FEWER crimes is ALSO proof that they are guilty. Got it.
Do not twist it. Nobody said that when they are caught with nothing they are guilty. Just that stop & frisk policy and car searches act as a deterrent of crime.
-
...
-
Good grief! Did anyone notice that the wicked shoe is blatantly white?
-
We have systemic racism in the US. You have to be blind not to see it. It's not as bad here as it is in many countries, and we don't have the serious levels of anti-Semitism that you see in Europe (can you say 'Jeremy Corbyn'?), but, it's still here. How bad? Not bad enough that mixed-race couples, black men and white women, don't feel free to go anywhere together, including the deep south, although they might want to stay away from redneck bars. Racist violence is mostly confined to crazy rednecks and white supremacists who are perhaps a fraction of 1% of the white population. A much higher proportion of the white population would feel uneasy socializing with blacks, but I don't know how many that would be. 30%? 50%? More? That uneasiness is certainly present.
But -- while the media presents what we are seeing in these riots as a reaction to racism, I don't really see it that way. What I see is a cop-black problem. In one of the most violent riots in the past few years, in Baltimore, everyone involved in the arrest and death of a black man, and the subsequent prosecution of the arrested officers, was black. They were acquitted by a mostly black jury. That's not racism, but it is a serious cop-on-black problem.
There's also a tribal aspect to all of this. Again, not as bad here as in other countries. (An Arab once asked, "How can we be anti-Semites? We ARE Semites." The problem in the Arab-Israel clash is tribal, not racial -- the Jews are a despised tribe of Semites.) And we have tribes in the US, although they are fading. At one time, a marriage between an Italian-American and an Irish-American was considered a disgrace by both nationalities. No more. We have gay tribes, and criminal tribes, and sports tribes, where the interests of ordinary people easily cross racial lines.
I was once a reporter in Minneapolis, which is a very liberal city in the Scandinavian mold, but also in Miami. In Miami, the tribes were intense. There was a Cuban tribe, for example. A guy who was absolutely black, but Cuban, would reject the black label, because that grouped him with American blacks. He would insist that his race was "Cuban" which was all right with most Cubans. A lot of Cubans rejected the labeled 'Hispanic,' because that grouped them with Mexicans who they regarded as lower-class stoop labor. Haitians were Haitian, not black, though to look at one, you'd swear that he/she was black. Some Jews referred to non-Jews as gentiles, but among the reasonably large Miami Morman community, Jews *are* gentiles. People born in Mexico usually carry a large Native American gene load ("Indio" in Mexico), but most reject that label -- they're 'Spanish' or 'Hispanic' but mostly "white" so the census has had to invent new categories like "Non-Hispanic White," because Spaniards are white, and therefore, so are Mexicans, even though they may look like Mayans. When we wanted to refer to the separate communities of Jews and non-Jewish whites, we occasionally would refer to Anglos. All those good Anglos like Italians, Greeks, and Russians.
The fact is, in the US, race and nationality labels don't mean much anymore. They don't make sense. I suspect when we're groping around for what to call people involved in things like these current riots, we should refer to "ghettoists." People who live in lower-class ghettos, and who may be of any race, or mixed-race. Racial labels sure don't refer much to dark-skinned guys who live out in the suburbs, and wax their Corvette and play golf every Sunday.
-
We have systemic racism in the US...
John, you claim that, but none of the examples you quoted have anything to do with the system, but with ordinary racism, or just human nature.
-
Part of the problem perhaps is that the tread is titled "The Myth of Systematic Racism", and the title of the link in the first post is "The Myth of Systematic Police Racism", so it is unclear what the topic is.
-
Part of the problem perhaps is that the tread is titled "The Myth of Systematic Racism", and the title of the link in the first post is "The Myth of Systematic Police Racism", so it is unclear what the topic is.
Given the "Myth" qualifier, isn't the topic the denial of systemic Racism (all sorts)?
-
There's a fascinating article in today's Wall Street Journal that pretty thoroughly debunks the whole idea of systemic racism.
-
It's hard to know what's really happening over there, being such a weird country.
Today I saw this 1994 quote from John Ehrlichman, former Nixon aide:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
-
It's hard to know what's really happening over there, being such a weird country.
Today I saw this 1994 quote from John Ehrlichman, former Nixon aide . . . .
Ehrlichman was convicted of engaging in several Watergate-related federal felonies, served 18 months in prison, and was disbarred from the practice of law.
I covered Watergate as a news reporter and therefore got to know him slightly. Actually, he didn't strike me as an unpleasant person in his interactions with the press. I'm not certain to what extent the attitudes he expressed represented what he really believed or whether he was just trying to act like a tough guy among his colleagues. I had a very different opinion of his close associate in the Nixon White House, chief-of-staff H.R. Haldeman, who also served time for Watergate-related crimes.
-
Just that stop & frisk policy and car searches act as a deterrent of crime.
Except looting.
-
In order not to derail the already outdated thread on the Chinese virus, i am starting the much more interesting, more contemporary one on the riots and looting.
The same guys who are currently engaged in violence and criminal behavior are apparently protesting against being stereotyped for violence and criminal behavior. You can't make this stuff up.
The Myth of Systemic Police Racism
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883?fbclid=IwAR2WHH-XRXHspvqV_doNUv7Tai68Eo6jfO70LTFvgEwt_pQ--XOtxkvE61I
The Myth of This Thread
Prove to me that the same folks who are protesting peacefully are also looting.
What I am quite happy to accept is that criminals see this as a wonderful opportunity to be taken advantage of - in the same way that cynical folks like you use the same opportunity to to further your decisive, bullshit, hateful politics.
-
...Prove to me that the folks who are protesting peacefully are looting...
Nothing to prove, as I didn’t say that.
I said they are both black, protesting against the treatment of blacks in general.
-
Tribal identification does encourage people to look at other groups negatively. People don't like Blacks, Jews, Italians, Irish, Southerners, Yankees, Mormons, Muslims, etc. President Kennedy had to prove to the country that he could be a good president even though he was a Catholic. He become the first Catholic in 180 years to be elected president. We got past that point as we did electing a Black as president with Obama, twice. America is a nation of outsiders, of immigrants in one form or another. So most of us know what that's about. We are big enough so that whoever you are there are some people who will not like you but there are more willing to give you a hand up. No one is held back in America if you're willing to work to get ahead.
The main problem of poverty and crime I believe is the breakup of the American family. Without strong parental leadership especially from a father (figure), boys especially go astray. They get in trouble, skip school, and become burdens to society. They have lives full of problems they bring onto themselves. Government welfare and social programs that encourage out of wedlock children are a big cause of this situation.
-
I have never held much faith in statistics.
According to statistics, I should have gone out of business within six months of hanging out my shingle as a snapper. According to statistics, the number of people who died of Covid-19 on any single day in Britain (and probably elsewhere too) varies depending on who offers them. Some include only deaths in hospitals, some add in the numbers that they get from care-homes, some add different sets of dead or exclude those who had it but also also died with other existing causes and I'm sure others do that and add in or subtract a factor to compensate for either politics or random chance.
The truth is that statistics are the items most prone to massage, especially where governmental reputations hang somewhere in the balance - or not. Most of us can only go so far in pursuing personal research: after that, we end up against red tape and "You are not permitted access" notices.
Frankly; I would be most surprised if governments themselves had really reliable figures on anything: they have never even been able to do the simple artithmetic of adding up the number of visitors coming into Britain, those leaving again and the number who just vanish into their relevant diaspora, never to be counted either in or out again.
You don't have to be criminals, either, just too lazy to act in your own interests: when Brexit landed through the proverbial letterbox here in the little island of Mallorca, out of the wainscoting leaped dozens and dozens of expats who had never bothered either to register for the Spanish Health Services nor anything else. Many of us lived like that in the 80s and long before, simply because the European connection didn't apply. We became semi-permanent tourists, and you could even buy a house and a car on that status; with the cars (and boats too, I think) you got a different kind of number plate with a little red dash on it. That saved you about 40% in taxes, and sold a helluva a lot of cars to foreigners. As long as you could prove - if challenged - to have remained in the country no more than three months at one time - you were in heaven. All it took was an airline ticket stub and/or a stamped passport. It suited everybody. However, that ended years ago, and life changed, largely for the better, because you got all the legal benefits you didn't before, even if you did have to pay full ticket for your wheels. If you could prove a steady income, a pension, for example, that, too, allowed you to live here permanently, legally.
As I say, statistics are, at best, educated guesses.
I would hate to be responsible for immigration statistic anywhere just north of the Rio Grande! And I bet it suits a helluva lot of white business to keep it that way too!
-
The Myth of This Thread
Prove to me that the same folks who are protesting peacefully are also looting.
What I am quite happy to accept is that criminals see this as a wonderful opportunity to be taken advantage of - in the same way that cynical folks like you use the same opportunity to to further your decisive, bullshit, hateful politics.
Nobody is making this point except for the media, largely to try and discredit any criticism and/or get ratings. In my opinion, there are three groups, the protester, the anarchists, and the opportunists.
The protesters start protesting peacefully, which stays like that while it is still light outside. I fully support this as completely American. Then, as it gets dark and harder to identify people, the anarchists slip into the protests to start causing trouble. Many of the protesters are calling out these people, but the media is largely not reporting this; you have to look up videos on Youtube to see this. So, the anarchists start destroying property and causing riots, and soon after the opportunists come to start looting. Considering many of these "opportunists" have been locked inside there homes for 70+ days without generating income, the temptation is too strong to steal so as to make money. (A problem created by the extended lock downs. Sure, there would have been opportunists without a lock down, but the lock downs generated many more.)
Then media move in, and with the mantra of "if it bleeds, it leads" they focus on the rioting and looting. This, however creates a problem for them and many Dems. The peaceful protest are certainly the main show, and should be, but no one is really showing that since it would not produce the same ratings. So the media and Dems need to defend the protests but without condemning the riots since this would be seen as a critique of the protests by the protesters, their voters. However, for the middle of the country, this is making them look like they are supporting the riots.
There have even been opinion pieces written about how the media is becoming part of the problem by focusing too much on the riots and not enough on the protests.
-
Tribal identification does encourage people to look at other groups negatively. People don't like Blacks, Jews, Italians, Irish, Southerners, Yankees, Mormons, Muslims, etc. President Kennedy had to prove to the country that he could be a good president even though he was a Catholic. He become the first Catholic in 180 years to be elected president. We got past that point as we did electing a Black as president with Obama, twice. America is a nation of outsiders, of immigrants in one form or another. So most of us know what that's about. We are big enough so that whoever you are there are some people who will not like you but there are more willing to give you a hand up. No one is held back in America if you're willing to work to get ahead.
The main problem of poverty and crime I believe is the breakup of the American family. Without strong parental leadership especially from a father (figure), boys especially go astray. They get in trouble, skip school, and become burdens to society. They have lives full of problems they bring onto themselves. Government welfare and social programs that encourage out of wedlock children are a big cause of this situation.
First, I feel that your last point that welfare encourages out of wedlock children is false. I do not feel it encourages out of wedlock children, after all many couples end up in that situation. I also feel that we should not come down hard on single mothers either over this. But what it does do is allow the man to walk away more easily since he knows the government will support his child for him. Add to that cultural break down and you have a recipe for fatherless children.
Although I have issue with criticizing single mothers, I have no issue with coming down hard on fathers who walk away! We need to return to a culture of shaming those men who do this.
Getting back to your first point, the Dems, with their intersectional politics, are the ones pushing tribal identification and that the foundation of America was built against minorities just to get votes. I find this very dangerous. As I pointed out in the other thread, the end logical solution to this problem is not change, but burning the country done and starting over.
The Dems are playing with fire, risking the destruction of the country, whether they know it or not, just to get votes. This is one of the main reasons I cant support them until they stop it with this dangerous politics.
-
My protest march!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=215DTOVot4Q
-
Nothing to prove, as I didn’t say that.
I said they are both black, protesting against the treatment of blacks in general.
Do you have television there in Belgrade?
-
Interesting analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=215DTOVot4Q
-
Do you have television there in Belgrade?
No, we are still using telegraph.
-
No, we are still using telegraph.
That explains why you don't see all those white people, predominately young, at the protests.
-
That explains why you don't see all those white people, predominately young, at the protests.
Who says I do not?
-
Who says I do not?
Nothing to prove, as I didn’t say that.
I said they are both black, protesting against the treatment of blacks in general.
-
Here's to Slobo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwLaDzKFiBY
-
In order not to derail the already outdated thread on the Chinese virus,
If you want your views on racism to be taken seriously, probably best to avoid using a racist trope in your opening sentence.
-
Well, gee, faberyman, the protest started by black people, then joined by the bored white youth looking to vent after 3 months inside. Besides, it doesn't take much for the left to go out and protest, whatever the cause. Being young and socialist at heart, indoctrinated by the leftist schools and universities, not to mention incited by the media and Democrats. But the protersters and looters and are still predominantly black.
-
If you want your views on racism to be taken seriously, probably best to avoid using a racist trope in your opening sentence.
Jeremy, I am flattered that you would consider taking my views seriously under any circumstances ;)
-
But the protersters and looters and are still predominantly black.
The protesters look predominately white to me. Must be the fault of the media.
-
Jeremy, I am flattered that you would consider taking my views seriously under any circumstances ;)
I don't, but if you want to fool others, best not give the game away so soon.
-
The protesters look predominately white to me. Must be the fault of the media.
Are you confusing your home movies with the news?
-
Are you confusing your home movies with the news?
What television station are you watching in Mallorca?
-
If you want your views on racism to be taken seriously, probably best to avoid using a racist trope in your opening sentence.
You are describing - possibly demonstrating - the three-second mind. Or tunnel vision as shown by some readers here. Reading the entire post, never mind a couple of sentences in sequence is sometimes too difficult if seizing upon one line can be made to appear as if it suits your own purposes and beliefs, quite regardless of the overal sentiment. In fact, I accept that this may not even be a voluntary, intentional act of perversion, but simply an irresitible eagerness to make points according to held emotional agendas. The problem here is, they divert attention and the natural course of rivers of thought.
-
What television station are you watching in Mallorca?
For news? Sky (which has vanished from my tv this afternoon - a first, as it usually survives all bad weather, which we have today - the domestic versions of the BBC and also the French france24.com which broadcasts in English. There is a good national Spanish news every evening from 9pm, local time. They are the four staples. I have access to the usual American ones, but find them almost unwatchable in their presentation, and that includes the financial ones. It must be dreadful is that's all the Americans can find (or are willing to seek) from which to inform themselves. Might explain a lot.
-
You are describing - possibly demonstrating - the three-second mind. Or tunnel vision as shown by some readers here. Reading the entire post, never mind a couple of sentences in sequence is sometimes too difficult if seizing upon one line can be made to appear as if it suits your own purposes and beliefs, quite regardless of the overal sentiment. In fact, I accept that this may not even be a voluntary, intentional act of perversion, but simply an irresitible eagerness to make points according to held emotional agendas. The problem here is, they divert attention and the natural course of rivers of thought.
+1 Rob.
-
You are describing - possibly demonstrating - the three-second mind. Or tunnel vision as shown by some readers here. Reading the entire post, never mind a couple of sentences in sequence is sometimes too difficult if seizing upon one line can be made to appear as if it suits your own purposes and beliefs, quite regardless of the overal sentiment. In fact, I accept that this may not even be a voluntary, intentional act of perversion, but simply an irresitible eagerness to make points according to held emotional agendas. The problem here is, they divert attention and the natural course of rivers of thought.
Not really - just using a handy heuristic to avoid the necessity to read screeds of nonsense simply in order to confirm what I can guess from the first few words.
-
The Dems are playing with fire, risking the destruction of the country, whether they know it or not, just to get votes. This is one of the main reasons I cant support them until they stop it with this dangerous politics.
It's times like this that make me happy that I didn't add Joe to an "ignore" list. It would have been a shame to miss watching his pathetic wriggling as the Covid crisis brought the shaky beams of his adolescent libretard fantasies crashing down around his ears, and now the treat of seeing him pretend that "the Dems" (ooh!! scary!!) and not Trump's infantile response to a grotesque civil rights violation are somehow to blame for the anger seen across the country. Priceless.
-
Not really - just using a handy heuristic to avoid the necessity to read screeds of nonsense simply in order to confirm what I can guess from the first few words.
Ah! At last: at true clairvoyant and seer.
;-)
-
You are describing - possibly demonstrating - the three-second mind. Or tunnel vision as shown by some readers here. Reading the entire post, never mind a couple of sentences in sequence is sometimes too difficult if seizing upon one line can be made to appear as if it suits your own purposes and beliefs, quite regardless of the overal sentiment. In fact, I accept that this may not even be a voluntary, intentional act of perversion, but simply an irresitible eagerness to make points according to held emotional agendas. The problem here is, they divert attention and the natural course of rivers of thought.
And I thought it was the poster just getting to the point right off the bat.
-
It's times like this that make me happy that I didn't add Joe to an "ignore" list. It would have been a shame to miss watching his pathetic wriggling as the Covid crisis brought the shaky beams of his adolescent libretard fantasies crashing down around his ears, and now the treat of seeing him pretend that "the Dems" (ooh!! scary!!) and not Trump's infantile response to a grotesque civil rights violation are somehow to blame for the anger seen across the country. Priceless.
No; whilst I have no respect for Trump, this wasn't his fault: that belongs to the idiot in uniform who killed that black guy with his knee. And to the other uniformed morons who stood by and watched when they could have pulled him off, for his own sake as well as for theirs. On the face of it. However, was he a superior officer? Did they worry he might draw his weapon and turn it on them if they intervened? Who knows what the internal dynamics of that sorry team might be? This is not offered as excuses, but as a wondering about the story behind the main event.
-
Besides, it doesn't take much for the left to go out and protest, whatever the cause. Being young and socialist at heart, indoctrinated by the leftist schools and universities, not to mention incited by the media and Democrats. But the protersters and looters and are still predominantly black.
More bagpipes!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwLaDzKFiBY
-
You are describing - possibly demonstrating - the three-second mind. Or tunnel vision as shown by some readers here. Reading the entire post, never mind a couple of sentences in sequence is sometimes too difficult if seizing upon one line can be made to appear as if it suits your own purposes and beliefs, quite regardless of the overal sentiment. In fact, I accept that this may not even be a voluntary, intentional act of perversion, but simply an irresitible eagerness to make points according to held emotional agendas. The problem here is, they divert attention and the natural course of rivers of thought.
Look upon them as a counterpoint to those who are so in love with their own voice that they ramble on and on and on...
-
Here's to Slobo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwLaDzKFiBY
If only it were so easy here.
-
No; whilst I have no respect for Trump, this wasn't his fault: that belongs to the idiot in uniform who killed that black guy with his knee. And to the other uniformed morons who stood by and watched when they could have pulled him off, for his own sake as well as for theirs. On the face of it...
Not to defend his actions, but that appears to be a standard police technique used to subdue unruly arrestee. It is taught in police academies. Some say it was abandoned in 2016 in some cities, some are still possibly using it, but cops tend resort to what they were taught at the time of their training. It seems that the kneeling cop (and the other three) didn't think he was doing anything wrong, given that he was fully aware he's been videotaped all the time.
Here is a link to a Washington Post article of a similar case in Texas:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/01/police-laughed-joked-he-lost-consciousness-handcuffs-minutes-later-he-died/?fbclid=IwAR0RRTTX8-UVESEbmxPy65hLUGha_aLl_TkUxKp22K-krhpnyBz5HkpBm5A
All actors were white.
-
More bagpipes!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwLaDzKFiBY
Are you Scottish? If not, what's the obsession?
-
Not to defend his actions, but that appears to be a standard police technique used to subdue unruly arrestee.
From the secutity tape footage that I've seen, George Floyd didn't seem unruly. Do you have different evidence?
-
You might find it interesting to hear from a black civil rights activist with a long history, what he thinks of the current race riots:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6161247705001?fbclid=IwAR1JiebVjYX_ihdS1KnA8NMPB5zBgSqTUQFNcGTlWlXciZebPDK5honbwtc#sp=show-clips
Civil rights activist Bob Woodson responds to riots: Race is being used as a ruse
-
From the secutity tape footage that I've seen, George Floyd didn't seem unruly. Do you have different evidence?
Apparently, when they tried to get him into the car after the arrest, he claimed he is claustrophobic and that he can not get in, trying to resist getting into the car. This is something I read a couple of days ago, so not sure about the veracity of the source anymore. Is there some video that shows the events prior to having him on the ground?
-
From the secutity tape footage that I've seen, George Floyd didn't seem unruly.
I think all us of (I hope) are agreement with this.
What I find troubling now though is the DA is increasing the charge to 2nd degree murder, which requires malice and that he intentionally wanted to kill him, purely due to political reasons. I don't think you can prove this; I think he is going to walk due to being overcharged. They should have kept it at 3rd degree.
I also don't think they will be able to get convictions of the other cops.
It's going to be another disgrace due to some DA trying to forward his career by going for the higher goal post but ultimately missing it.
-
what do you expect, it's in their DNA as a party.
Bagpipes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop this nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwLaDzKFiBY
-
It's times like this that make me happy that I didn't add Joe to an "ignore" list. It would have been a shame to miss watching his pathetic wriggling as the Covid crisis brought the shaky beams of his adolescent libretard fantasies crashing down around his ears, and now the treat of seeing him pretend that "the Dems" (ooh!! scary!!) and not Trump's infantile response to a grotesque civil rights violation are somehow to blame for the anger seen across the country. Priceless.
I've made it crystal clear that political comments relating to the virus are confined to the playpen. Offenders will be banned, after at most one warning. Don't do it again.
Jeremy
-
If you want your views on racism to be taken seriously, probably best to avoid using a racist trope in your opening sentence.
The description "Chinese virus" is no more 'racist' than Spanish 'flu, Hong Kong flu or Bornholm disease.
Jeremy
-
I think all us of (I hope) are agreement with this.
What I find troubling now though is the DA is increasing the charge to 2nd degree murder, which requires malice and that he intentionally wanted to kill him, purely due to political reasons. I don't think you can prove this; I think he is going to walk due to being overcharged. They should have kept it at 3rd degree.
I also don't think they will be able to get convictions of the other cops.
A legal analyst on one of the cable channels last night said that Minnesota's third degree murder charge is weird (for reasons I didn't understand) and wasn't appropriate for this case, because the prosecution would have to prove something about somebody's state of mind that is almost unprovable; therefore, the charge is rarely used. I tend to agree that he may be overcharged and could walk on that. I think perhaps manslaughter is more appropriate, but politically, he almost had to be charged with something that had "murder" in the title, if only to help quiet the public protests. If the cop walks, there'll probably be more riots, but I think it's a possibility. The medical examiner's report said that Floyd had "recently" used methamphetamine and fentanyl, was overweight, and had a heart condition and the cause of his death wasn't asphyxiation or "brain death," but heart failure to which the cop's restraint probably contributed. But to convict the cop, I think you'd have to prove that he knew that Floyd had recently used dangerous drugs and had a heart condition. That whole thing about kneeling on his neck and choking him seems to be going away, replaced by the heart failure diagnosis.
I will be very interested in seeing how the legal defense handles this case, especially the jury. If I were them, I'd make sure there were plenty of black people on it, and if I were the prosecution, I'd make sure there were plenty of "lesser-included" charges.
-
What I find troubling now though is the DA is increasing the charge to 2nd degree murder, which requires malice and that he intentionally wanted to kill him, purely due to political reasons. I don't think you can prove this; I think he is going to walk due to being overcharged. They should have kept it at 3rd degree.
There is a lesser included charge of second degree manslaughter which does not require proof of intent.
-
A legal analyst on one of the cable channels last night said that Minnesota's third degree murder charge is weird (for reasons I didn't understand) and wasn't appropriate for this case, because the prosecution would have to prove something about somebody's state of mind that is almost unprovable; therefore, the charge is rarely used. I tend to agree that he may be overcharged and could walk on that. I think perhaps manslaughter is more appropriate, but politically, he almost had to be charged with something that had "murder" in the title, if only to help quiet the public protests. If the cop walks, there'll probably be more riots, but I think it's a possibility. The medical examiner's report said that Floyd had "recently" used methamphetamine and fentanyl, was overweight, and had a heart condition and the cause of his death wasn't asphyxiation or "brain death," but heart failure to which the cop's restraint probably contributed. But to convict the cop, I think you'd have to prove that he knew that Floyd had recently used dangerous drugs and had a heart condition. That whole thing about kneeling on his neck and choking him seems to be going away, replaced by the heart failure diagnosis.
I will be very interested in seeing how the legal defense handles this case, especially the jury. If I were them, I'd make sure there were plenty of black people on it, and if I were the prosecution, I'd make sure there were plenty of "lesser-included" charges.
Thanks for the comment on the 3rd degree murder charge. I am not a lawyer (obviously) and really am only familiar with my state, which has 3rd degree too.
Can you add a charge of manslaughter too with the murder charge? I feel that is the only way to get a conviction without causing another riot, albeit many on the left will still be disappointed.
I also think, politically it is inevedable for a Federal civil right violation charge to be brought up. Albeit, that seems nearly impossible to prove in this case.
-
John, you claim that, but none of the examples you quoted have anything to do with the system, but with ordinary racism, or just human nature.
I didn't respond to this earlier because I didn't see it. When you said "systemic racism" I thought you meant racism in the "body politic" -- defined as "the people of a nation, state, or society considered collectively as an organized group of citizens." What you apparently meant was what? Official, government-supported racism? We do still have some of that, which is the reason the Georgia jogger murder wasn't even charged for weeks by local authorities, when it was clearly a murder and immediately tabbed as such when taken to a higher, more visible level of government.
-
I didn't respond to this earlier because I didn't see it. When you said "systemic racism" I thought you meant racism in the "body politic" -- defined as "the people of a nation, state, or society considered collectively as an organized group of citizens." What you apparently meant was what? Official, government-supported racism? We do still have some of that, which is the reason the Georgia jogger murder wasn't even charged for weeks by local authorities, when it was clearly a murder and immediately tabbed as such when taken to a higher, more visible level of government.
Once again, show us the proof it was racist? There are two parts of this, the murder and the fact they did not get charged.
In the former, I feel it is probably a combination of racism and vigilantism, but still no evidence has come forth on this. It was certainly, partly, vigilantism though.
On the latter, I feel it was more the effect of the "old boys club," no racism. One of the three was a former investigator and knew the entire police department and DA office. They were probably more inclined to believe his version of events just due to the fact they knew him personally.
-
The Dems were against ending slavery. It was Lincoln, a republican, that ended it.
Most KKK members were Dems. FDR even wrote about how he wanted to advance race relations but could not due to his Southern party members that were racists.
Jim Crow was forwarded and supported by the Dems. The Republicans started to bring down the racism in the South. EIK even used the Insurrection Act to send the military against the wishes of the Democratic governor of Alabama so those three college students could go to class.
Here's the thing. It is people like you who insist on calling/implying Republicans racists just for policy disagreements, and I've had enough of it. You're even doing it now, albeit in a subtle way. So, if you want to continue it, lets talk about the history of the Democratic party. You'll find many more example of pure racism in it then the Republican.
Your reading of history is quite poor. Jim Crow was a Southern Democrat creation and in no way linked to the larger Democratic part elsewhere in the country. All the descendants of those Southern Democrats are now Republicans who moved away following the 1964 Civil Rights Laws. You would do well to read Jill Lepore's very fine history of the United States, "These Truths: A History of the United States."
-
On the latter, I feel it was more the effect of the "old boys club," no racism. One of the three was a former investigator and knew the entire police department and DA office. They were probably more inclined to believe his version of events just due to the fact they knew him personally.
Do you mean the "old white boys club" I am pretty sure that if a retired black cop and his son shot dead a white man jogging through their neighborhood, the response would have been different. By the way, I just read that after they shot him, they ran over him with a truck.
-
By the way, one thing I'm curious about is when the Floyd case will go to trial. Under Minnesota law, if you demand a speedy trial, you must be tried within 60 days. Otherwise, you must be tried within 120 days of pleading "not guilty." 120 days is four months, which would put it at the end of September, just in time to potentially have riots before the election. I can't figure out who'd want that -- law and order Republicans, or Democrats trying to energize the anti-Trump vote. But do they really want to have a trial in the middle of what looks like it's going to be a hot, politically crazy summer?
I wonder if it's possible that the prosecutors and the defense might have a quiet word about it, that the defense ask for a series of delays that push the trial past the election, and in return, the prosecution accepts some kind of low-level manslaughter conviction and short prison sentence? Don't call me cynical, but I'm cynical.
It's gonna be interesting.
-
On the latter, I feel it was more the effect of the "old boys club," no racism. One of the three was a former investigator and knew the entire police department and DA office. They were probably more inclined to believe his version of events just due to the fact they knew him personally.
Er, that's exactly what systemic racism is.
-
I do not believe if the jogger was white, the response of the DA would have been different.
If the jogger was white he wouldn't have been dead.
-
If the jogger was white he wouldn't have been dead.
/thread
-
No, it is not racism just because you say so. You need to prove it and I have not seen any evidence
Would it change your mind if the investigator testified at the preliminary hearing that the guy who shot the video of the killing heard the son exclaim "fucking nigger" after he shot him.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/us/mcmichaels-hearing-ahmaud-arbery/index.html
-
For news? Sky (which has vanished from my tv this afternoon - a first, as it usually survives all bad weather, which we have today - the domestic versions of the BBC and also the French france24.com which broadcasts in English. There is a good national Spanish news every evening from 9pm, local time. They are the four staples. I have access to the usual American ones, but find them almost unwatchable in their presentation, and that includes the financial ones. It must be dreadful is that's all the Americans can find (or are willing to seek) from which to inform themselves. Might explain a lot.
I get my world news from LuLa. :o
-
If the jogger was white he wouldn't have been dead.
I'll agree with this. At most, he would have been roughed up, if that.
-
What I find troubling now though is the DA is increasing the charge to 2nd degree murder, which requires malice and that he intentionally wanted to kill him, purely due to political reasons. I don't think you can prove this; I think he is going to walk due to being overcharged. They should have kept it at 3rd degree.
A legal analyst on one of the cable channels last night said that Minnesota's third degree murder charge is weird (for reasons I didn't understand) and wasn't appropriate for this case, because the prosecution would have to prove something about somebody's state of mind that is almost unprovable; therefore, the charge is rarely used. I tend to agree that he may be overcharged and could walk on that.
While the crime of third-degree murder in Minnesota is unusual―most U.S. states separate murder into only two categories―I don't see anything in the language of the statute (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195) that would make the charge inherently difficult to prove. The third-degree murder provision in Minnesota might be characterized as "aggravated manslaughter"―egregious in its viciousness but lacking the intent to kill:
Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree . . .
There are two parts to the Minnesota second-degree murder provision. The first applies to instances where there was an intent to kill but no premeditation. It's the second part that the prosecution apparently is relying on as the basis for upgrading the charge: the state's version of the felony murder rule (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19): a killing, even if unintentional, that is committed during the commission of another felony.
Whoever . . . causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense . . . [shall be guilty of second-degree murder]
To get a conviction, the prosecution will have to prove that the officer was engaging in the commission of another felony when he killed the victim. It's not clear to me (I'm hardly an expert on Minnesota law) what that felony would be; I'm not aware that the Minnesota prosecutor has publicly described his theory of the case.
-
I think all us of (I hope) are agreement with this.
What I find troubling now though is the DA is increasing the charge to 2nd degree murder, which requires malice and that he intentionally wanted to kill him, purely due to political reasons. I don't think you can prove this; I think he is going to walk due to being overcharged. They should have kept it at 3rd degree.
I also don't think they will be able to get convictions of the other cops.
It's going to be another disgrace due to some DA trying to forward his career by going for the higher goal post but ultimately missing it.
Keith Ellison, who is now the Minnesota District Attorney (DA), decided to try this case himself. Ellison ran for chairman of the Democrat National Committee (DNC) a couple of years ago and lost. But he ran for and became the DA. So Ellison is very much into a political future and is using this case to advance his career. Raising the charge to 2nd degree and charging the other three cops was a foregone conclusion regardless of the evidence. It's what blacks and Democrats want. The whole thing is now political and has lost all semblance of legal balance, evidence, intent, etc. The public demanded a higher charge and that the other three be tried. So be it.
-
Would it change your mind if the investigator testified at the preliminary hearing that the guy who shot the video of the killing heard the son exclaim "fucking nigger" after he shot him.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/us/mcmichaels-hearing-ahmaud-arbery/index.html
If it came out that the actual original DA (not the guy who shot the video, we are not talking about him) that decided not to charge heard that in the video prior to his decision, I would be more inclined to believe him dropping the case was racist. I would still like to see a history of racism of the DA (I'll take even just a couple racist social media posts from him) to definitively jump to that conclusion.
You are conflating the two here btw whether you realize it or not. I, in my original post on this, said I believe the killing was both racism and vigilantism, which is what you are referencing in the above post. However, the decision of not charging (which is what we moved onto) I do not necessarily believe was an example of racism. I believe the majority of the time in cases like this it is incompetence, not malice.
At the very least, I do think there is already a justified need for an independent review of the entire DA by both state investigators and the Bar association. Disbarment may be called for in this case.
-
A legal analyst on one of the cable channels last night said that Minnesota's third degree murder charge is weird (for reasons I didn't understand) and wasn't appropriate for this case, because the prosecution would have to prove something about somebody's state of mind that is almost unprovable; therefore, the charge is rarely used. I tend to agree that he may be overcharged and could walk on that. I think perhaps manslaughter is more appropriate, but politically, he almost had to be charged with something that had "murder" in the title, if only to help quiet the public protests. If the cop walks, there'll probably be more riots, but I think it's a possibility. The medical examiner's report said that Floyd had "recently" used methamphetamine and fentanyl, was overweight, and had a heart condition and the cause of his death wasn't asphyxiation or "brain death," but heart failure to which the cop's restraint probably contributed. But to convict the cop, I think you'd have to prove that he knew that Floyd had recently used dangerous drugs and had a heart condition. That whole thing about kneeling on his neck and choking him seems to be going away, replaced by the heart failure diagnosis.
I will be very interested in seeing how the legal defense handles this case, especially the jury. If I were them, I'd make sure there were plenty of black people on it, and if I were the prosecution, I'd make sure there were plenty of "lesser-included" charges.
The whole thing could turn out to be a liability issue where the family gets paid damages. The more hullabaloo the higher the damages usually paid. Having a famous ex medical examiner like Baden working for the family and crying "murder" raises the stakes.
But often it's just negligence and not criminal intent. I'm not saying this case necessarily. I don't know all the facts. But, the cop could have over-reacted not realizing the victim's condition. That's not criminal per se. Then the city pays damages. This happens all the time in America. It's like a car accident where you drove faster than the speed limit before the accident. Rarely are people charged with a crime. There are civil damages paid out to the victim and family.
-
While the crime of third-degree murder in Minnesota is unusual―most U.S. states separate murder into only two categories―I don't see anything in the language of the statute (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195) that would make the charge inherently difficult to prove. The third-degree murder provision in Minnesota might be characterized as "aggravated manslaughter"―egregious in its viciousness but lacking the intent to kill:
There are two parts to the Minnesota second-degree murder provision. The first applies to instances where there was an intent to kill but no premeditation. It's the second part that the prosecution apparently is relying on as the basis for upgrading the charge: the state's version of the felony murder rule (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19): a killing, even if unintentional, that is committed during the commission of another felony.
To get a conviction, the prosecution will have to prove that the officer was engaging in the commission of another felony when he killed the victim. It's not clear to me (I'm hardly an expert on Minnesota law) what that felony would be; I'm not aware that the Minnesota prosecutor has publicly described his theory of the case.
If you or me had our knee on someone and killed them, it would be easy to prove manslaughter or murder. But in this case, it was a police officer doing his duty during an arrest. He was using what seems to be standard police practice to restrain the perpertrator. If the cop's action was too long and led to the death of the perpetrator, espoecially if it turns out he died of something other than strangulation, that in itself would be an accident, maybe negligence, but not criminal. I think that's going to be the main point of the defence at trial. So the cop gets off and the City of Minneapolis pays millions to the family for negligence, a civil and not a criminal act.
-
While the crime of third-degree murder in Minnesota is unusual―most U.S. states separate murder into only two categories―I don't see anything in the language of the statute (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195) that would make the charge inherently difficult to prove. The third-degree murder provision in Minnesota might be characterized as "aggravated manslaughter"―egregious in its viciousness but lacking the intent to kill:
There are two parts to the Minnesota second-degree murder provision. The first applies to instances where there was an intent to kill but no premeditation. It's the second part that the prosecution apparently is relying on as the basis for upgrading the charge: the state's version of the felony murder rule (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19): a killing, even if unintentional, that is committed during the commission of another felony.
To get a conviction, the prosecution will have to prove that the officer was engaging in the commission of another felony when he killed the victim. It's not clear to me (I'm hardly an expert on Minnesota law) what that felony would be; I'm not aware that the Minnesota prosecutor has publicly described his theory of the case.
The quote machine here is not including the things you quoted from the statutes. One of the things you included but is ommitted in the quote of your post, is this:
"Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree . . "
How do you prove "evincing a depraved mind"? That is apparently the problem the commentator was referring to.
Alan mentioned that Keith Ellison decided to prosecute. Actually, he has said he personally won't prosecute -- as a lawyer, he was (as he says) always on the other side, as a defense attorney. What he did was take the case away from Hennepin County, and it ill be prosecuted through the state attorney general's office, by a regular trial prosecutor.
-
If you or me had our knee on someone and killed them, it would be easy to prove manslaughter or murder. But in this case, it was a police officer doing his duty during an arrest. He was using what seems to be standard police practice to restrain the perpertrator. If the cop's action was too long and led to the death of the perpetrator, espoecially if it turns out he died of something other than strangulation, that in itself would be an accident, maybe negligence, but not criminal. I think that's going to be the main point of the defence at trial. So the cop gets off and the City of Minneapolis pays millions to the family for negligence, a civil and not a criminal act.
Come on now Alan. I usually give the benefit of the doubt to police officers, but this is clearly manslaughter. Perhaps not murder, but I just cant see anyone thinking this is not at least manslaughter.
-
Our beloved moderator has said we can't post drivel about the riots in the politics thread, but I'm not sure that this thread is intended for drivel about riots, either. Nevertheless, since the other thread is out, I'll post this:
Although I'm a political liberal, I don't like the politicization of the news pages of newspapers. You see it everywhere now, on the three papers I read (NYT, WAPO, WSJ.) However, sometimes thing are just too good not to enjoy. Here is a laboriously typed-in quote from Wednesday's NYT -- a news column, not an opinion column or editorial -- on the coverage of Bunker Don's photo op at the church:
"After a day in which he berated 'weak' governors and lectured them to 'dominate' the demonstrators, the president emerged from the White House, followed by a phalanx of aides and Secret Service agents as he made his way to the church, where he posed stern-faced, holding up a Bible that his daughter pulled out of her $1,540 Max Mara bag."
Made me laugh.
-
Our beloved moderator has said we can't post drivel about the riots in the politics thread, but I'm not sure that this thread is intended for drivel about riots, either. Nevertheless, since the other thread is out, I'll post this:
Although I'm a political liberal, I don't like the politicization of the news pages of newspapers. You see it everywhere now, on the three papers I read (NYT, WAPO, WSJ.) However, sometimes thing are just too good not to enjoy. Here is a laboriously typed-in quote from Wednesday's NYT -- a news column, not an opinion column or editorial -- on the coverage of Bunker Don's photo op at the church:
"After a day in which he berated 'weak' governors and lectured them to 'dominate' the demonstrators, the president emerged from the White House, followed by a phalanx of aides and Secret Service agents as he made his way to the church, where he posed stern-faced, holding up a Bible that his daughter pulled out of her $1,540 Max Mara bag."
Made me laugh.
Out of curiosity, as a reporter, how would you have related that scene?
-
Our beloved moderator has said we can't post drivel about the riots in the politics thread, but I'm not sure that this thread is intended for drivel about riots, either. Nevertheless, since the other thread is out, I'll post this:
Although I'm a political liberal, I don't like the politicization of the news pages of newspapers. You see it everywhere now, on the three papers I read (NYT, WAPO, WSJ.) However, sometimes thing are just too good not to enjoy. Here is a laboriously typed-in quote from Wednesday's NYT -- a news column, not an opinion column or editorial -- on the coverage of Bunker Don's photo op at the church:
"After a day in which he berated 'weak' governors and lectured them to 'dominate' the demonstrators, the president emerged from the White House, followed by a phalanx of aides and Secret Service agents as he made his way to the church, where he posed stern-faced, holding up a Bible that his daughter pulled out of her $1,540 Max Mara bag."
Made me laugh.
What has the bag and its price and brand have anything to do with anything? This is not reporting, but opinion/editorial/bias/envy.
-
Our beloved moderator has said we can't post drivel about the riots in the politics thread, but I'm not sure that this thread is intended for drivel about riots, either. Nevertheless, since the other thread is out, I'll post this:
Although I'm a political liberal, I don't like the politicization of the news pages of newspapers. You see it everywhere now, on the three papers I read (NYT, WAPO, WSJ.) However, sometimes thing are just too good not to enjoy. Here is a laboriously typed-in quote from Wednesday's NYT -- a news column, not an opinion column or editorial -- on the coverage of Bunker Don's photo op at the church:
"After a day in which he berated 'weak' governors and lectured them to 'dominate' the demonstrators, the president emerged from the White House, followed by a phalanx of aides and Secret Service agents as he made his way to the church, where he posed stern-faced, holding up a Bible that his daughter pulled out of her $1,540 Max Mara bag."
Made me laugh.
Too funny.
But seriously, how can you report on such a charade in a serious way.
I watched some of the video, till I couldn't stand it anymore. I long ago stopped expecting much from Trump, so the silly parade and the mute standing holding a bible is just one more stupid thing he did. But I have to wonder what's going through the minds of his staff who have to join in on the third-rate parade. Reminded me more than anything of a Soviet show trial, for some reason. What kind of spineless gorm lives a life where they have to playact their way through phoney scenes like this. I get it that "shows" happen in politics all the time, but geez, this wasn't even a good show. It was "high school".
-
There is no myth of systemic racism: it is real.
The problem with racism is evident even in this thread's title.
The biggest problem is that when you look in the mirror, you don't see it.
What you see is your own face and judging by the profile pictures of people in this thread, those faces are all white.
-
What has the bag and its price and brand have anything to do with anything? This is not reporting, but opinion/editorial/bias/envy.
Indeed; when somebody naughty does something and the press is trying to get an interview, should the guy be on a cool boat, it's always referred to as a luxury yacht. I didn't realise there was any other kind... even a stripped down racer is a luxury, for crissakes.
Envy is a great tool for the massed ranks to use as a focussing device for their pool of hatreds, and so journos twiddle it a little whenever they feel the need to incite some of it to encourage the readership along.
:-)
-
If the jogger was white he wouldn't have been dead.
If you want to play this game > if the jogger was white, he wouldn't have criminal record, nor would scout the locations while jogging.
-
There is no myth of systemic racism: it is real.
The problem with racism is evident even in this thread's title.
The biggest problem is that when you look in the mirror, you don't see it.
What you see is your own face and judging by the profile pictures of people in this thread, those faces are all white.
Don't bank on the mirror to be impartial or even to tell you a part of the truth: mine, along with shop windows, has been taken over by an old guy I don't recognize.
Reference to avatars as any kind of evidence is circumstantial at best: some don't have the desire to have one and others are also plagued by imposters in their mirrors: why would they give the fakes the oxygen?
Didn't Time magazine turn some important dark chap a couple of Pantones too light for complete readership harmony? It might have been an innocent attempt to get the pic to print better. It may also have been another magazine, but it happened somewhere and hit the news. I have yet to hear of any printing a white guy too white, but orange does seem to be a favourite alternative to reality unless it is reality, which is quite another problem.
I was wondering: is racism exclusively a white thing, then?
-
If you want to play this game > if the jogger was white, he wouldn't have criminal record, nor would scout the locations while jogging.
The jogger murder didn't run on British tv for very long, being out-interested by other stuff, so I can't claim to have seen a conclusion regarding the reasons behind the attack; why was the jogger shot? I wouldn't have thought you shoot anyone for jogging unless they try to make you jog too.
Rob
-
If you want to play this game > if the jogger was white, he wouldn't have criminal record, nor would scout the locations while jogging.
Why wouldn't a white jogger have a criminal record?
And is it ok for an ex-cop to shoot someone who has a criminal record, even if the ex-cop doesn't know that? Even if the jogger isn't doing anything illegal?
In the reports I read at the time, they said that he had looked in on a house construction site, something I've done myself several times.
Are "plantation rules" still in effect in Georgia? :)
-
...why was the jogger shot?...
Speaking from memory... a confluence or events... a string of recent robberies in the neighborhood... someone saw the jogger entering a building under construction, leaving a few minutes later... two white guys, one retired investigator and former police officer and his son, attempted a citizen arrest... the jogger got into a fight, tried to grab the rifle and ... was shot.
Full details at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery
-
Why wouldn't a white jogger have a criminal record?
And is it ok for an ex-cop to shoot someone who has a criminal record, even if the ex-cop doesn't know that? Even if the jogger isn't doing anything illegal?
In the reports I read at the time, they said that he had looked in on a house construction site, something I've done myself several times.
Are "plantation rules" still in effect in Georgia? :)
Actually there was no justification for the shooting, and anyone who says otherwise is either playing a game or does not know the law. I realize this is not you.
None of the three was a current officer of the law, so they only had the authority of citizen's arrest. In order to exercise a citizen's arrest, you need to personally witness a crime in progress and immediately act to arrest that person. As a citizen, you are neither allowed to arrest someone after the fact nor are you allowed to arrest someone based on what another person witnessed. The latter is what appears to have happened.
On top of that, no crime was committed. He ran through a construction site that was open and not clearly marked with no trespassing signs. That is not a crime.
This too, should be an open and shut case, so long as they are not over charged.
-
Why wouldn't a white jogger have a criminal record?...
Statistical probability. And whites with criminal records do not jog. That's a yuppie thing.
-
Actually there was no justification for the shooting, and anyone who says otherwise is either playing a game or does not know the law. I realize this is not you...
Just to be clear, nothing that I said so far about the case shall be interpreted as a justification for the shooting.
-
But in this case, it was a police officer doing his duty during an arrest. He was using what seems to be standard police practice to restrain the perpertrator. If the cop's action was too long and led to the death of the perpetrator, espoecially if it turns out he died of something other than strangulation, that in itself would be an accident, maybe negligence, but not criminal. I think that's going to be the main point of the defence at trial. So the cop gets off and the City of Minneapolis pays millions to the family for negligence, a civil and not a criminal act.
Not so fast. You are forgetting three tiny details: the video, the video, and the video. I predict the jury will convict the cop of 2nd degree murder because the video is just too disturbing. The jurors will not see incompetence, they will see cruelty. And cruelty is close enough to intention. And intention equals murder. His goose is cooked.
-
Speaking from memory... a confluence or events... a string of recent robberies in the neighborhood... someone saw the jogger entering a building under construction, leaving a few minutes later... two white guys, one retired investigator and former police officer and his son, attempted a citizen arrest... the jogger got into a fight, tried to grab the rifle and ... was shot.
Full details at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery
Is the text here something you wrote or are you quoting someone else? It is not from the Wikipedia entry you link to?
-
This must Go!!!!
-
This must Go!!!!
can you elaborate?
Another suggestion: instead of opening so many new threads you might want to delete them and insert the combined content into one common aggregated thread.
-
Not so fast. You are forgetting three tiny details: the video, the video, and the video. I predict the jury will convict the cop of 2nd degree murder because the video is just too disturbing. The jurors will not see incompetence, they will see cruelty. And cruelty is close enough to intention. And intention equals murder. His goose is cooked.
Although I hope you are right, there have been too many cases where this did not happen.
I believe there is a great argument that if Zimmerman was charged with manslaughter he would be in jail today!
-
Your representation of black people and a hispanic mayor are not honored on this site. Stand up for Racism!!!
-
The quote machine here is not including the things you quoted from the statutes. One of the things you included but is ommitted in the quote of your post, is this:
"Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree . . "
Actually, that phrase is included in the section of the statute I quoted; please take another look (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=135187.msg1174118#msg1174118).
How do you prove "evincing a depraved mind"? That is apparently the problem the commentator was referring to.
The same way you prove a state-of-mind, which is an element in every criminal prosecution even if it isn't an explicit requirement of the language of the statute,* and, for that matter, in many civil actions (e.g., fraud): the prosecutor/plaintiff introduces evidence to persuade the trier of fact (a jury or, in a bench trial, the judge) to infer that the requisite state-of-mind was present.
―――
*I'm not going to try to offer a detailed explanation here, but look up mens rea and scienter.
-
Yeah, the comment on this thread are Ok. People are just expressing themselves. WTF!!!
-
Actually, that phrase is included in the section of the statute I quoted; please take another look (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=135187.msg1174118#msg1174118).
The same way you prove a state-of-mind, which is an element in every criminal prosecution even if it isn't an explicit requirement of the language of the statute* and, for that matter, in many civil actions (e.g., fraud): the prosecutor/plaintiff introduces evidence to persuade the trier of fact (a jury or, in a bench trial, the judge) to infer that the requisite state-of-mind was present.
―――
*I'm not going to try to offer a detailed explanation here, but look up mens rea and scienter.
What I was saying was that your quotation of the statute didn't come through when I quoted your post, so I had to copy and paste. I was explaining that problem to other readers. Our quote machine apparently thinks that material was quoted from somewhere else on this tread, so did not pick it up.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know about the evincing a depraved mind thing, but that's what CNN's legal analyst said was the problem with the statute, that is not present in other 3rd degree statutes in other states that have them. I would think both "evincing" and "depraved" would be a problem. How do you evince something -- when you looked at that cop and what he was doing, he looked both calm and almost bored, even though he knew he was being recorded with a video camera. But, as I said, I'm not a lawyer, although the woman who made this claim is a former federal prosecutor in Minnesota and was apparently familiar with problems with that particular statute.
-
What I was saying was that your quotation of the statute didn't come through when I quoted your post, so I had to copy and paste.
Yup, sorry: I misread your comment about the forum's quoting mechanism.
The rest of my response, and my earlier post, stands. I don't see any inherent problem proving the elements of the Minnesota statute.
-
Your representation of black people and a hispanic mayor are not honored on this site. Stand up for Racism!!!
Once again, you are conflating me with another poster.
I never spoke about the sherif nor made nefarious comments on any type of people. I largely talk in abstract political policy referencing studies to show my point. I do get heated with others over politics, but who doesn't.
Not to mention the point of the post you responded to I am fully agreeing the officer should go to jail, but feel overcharging him will lead to his acquittal. I don't want to see this, and would like to see an appropriate charge, not virtue signaling on the part of the DA by overcharging him.
If he gets off by being overcharged (like Zimmerman), instead of us admitting that the DA made a bad decision and holding the DA responsible, it will just resort to the same old same old political discussion as before.
-
I am impressed by the strength of the reaction of many republicans against the measures proposed by Trump to deal with the civil unrest.
His mention of "domination of streets" using federal forces, his decision to remove by force peaceful protestors for the sake of a photo op with him holding a bible,... are just a completely shameful and a clear threat for democracy.
And this is without mentioning his total lack of empathy, his lack of attempts to unite the country,...
Regards,
Bernard
-
Is the text here something you wrote or are you quoting someone else? It is not from the Wikipedia entry you link to?
I wrote the text. Which part you object to?
-
Your representation of black people and a hispanic mayor are not honored on this site. Stand up for Racism!!!
What is my representation of black people? The statistic I quoted? Are stats now racist too? Or is it too hard for you to process inconvenient truths?
Btw, I think you meant to say “stand up against racism,” no?
-
Come on now Alan. I usually give the benefit of the doubt to police officers, but this is clearly manslaughter. Perhaps not murder, but I just cant see anyone thinking this is not at least manslaughter.
I only saw about ten seconds of a cop with his knee on a guy's neck who was on the ground. I also saw a few seconds of the man walking around cuffed. These weren't enough for me to draw a conclusion about anything and certainly nothing about the other three cops. I also saw a photo on three cops holding down the perpetrator and another cop standing around. So what? Cops hold down perpetrators all the time. Often it takes multiple cops to do that. Maybe you saw more? Someone here said that the coroner said he died of some cardiac arrest, that he was on powerful and dangerous Fentanyl and other drugs. If he didn't die of asphyxiation, then how did the cop kill him? Maybe the stress of being arrested with all those drugs in him caused him to OD. There are just too many unknowns right now and frankly a rush to judgment because of the politics of it. Why don't we just string all four of them up right now and get it over with?
-
What has the bag and its price and brand have anything to do with anything? This is not reporting, but opinion/editorial/bias/envy.
+1. That's the first thing I thought when I heard it on one of the cable channels. Fake news. Next thing we'll learn is Ivanka wears dresses that costs thousands of dollars and sends her kids to private school. They must be guilty of something.
-
Too funny.
But seriously, how can you report on such a charade in a serious way.
I watched some of the video, till I couldn't stand it anymore. I long ago stopped expecting much from Trump, so the silly parade and the mute standing holding a bible is just one more stupid thing he did. But I have to wonder what's going through the minds of his staff who have to join in on the third-rate parade. Reminded me more than anything of a Soviet show trial, for some reason. What kind of spineless gorm lives a life where they have to playact their way through phoney scenes like this. I get it that "shows" happen in politics all the time, but geez, this wasn't even a good show. It was "high school".
President Bush did it with style. After America beat Saddam Hussein and won the Iraq war, he flew in a jet and landed it on an aircraft carrier as the cameras rolled. Then he steps out of the plane in his aviator leather jacket with aviator sunglasses looking like Tom Cruise and the whole ship, erupts in applause and hoots and hollers. Of course the huge sign "Mission Accomplished" came back to haunt him. But he surely showed Hollywood a thing or two at the time.
Now that's how to do a photo op. :)
-
Not so fast. You are forgetting three tiny details: the video, the video, and the video. I predict the jury will convict the cop of 2nd degree murder because the video is just too disturbing. The jurors will not see incompetence, they will see cruelty. And cruelty is close enough to intention. And intention equals murder. His goose is cooked.
I didn't forget anything. I clearly stated in my post that I only saw ten seconds of a video with a cop with his knee on a guy's neck holding him down. Most arrests look "cruel" while they're being done. A cop is allowed to use force if required. If the jury rules that the cop is guilty because they find how he did a legal act "cruel", then they would not be judging according to the law. As a teenage kid, I once mouthed off to a cop. He gave me a little rap with his night stick on my elbow that hurt like hell for a week. Off course I didn't complain to my dad what happened or he would have been more "cruel" to me than the cop. :)
-
What I was saying was that your quotation of the statute didn't come through when I quoted your post, so I had to copy and paste. I was explaining that problem to other readers. Our quote machine apparently thinks that material was quoted from somewhere else on this tread, so did not pick it up.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know about the evincing a depraved mind thing, but that's what CNN's legal analyst said was the problem with the statute, that is not present in other 3rd degree statutes in other states that have them. I would think both "evincing" and "depraved" would be a problem. How do you evince something -- when you looked at that cop and what he was doing, he looked both calm and almost bored, even though he knew he was being recorded with a video camera. But, as I said, I'm not a lawyer, although the woman who made this claim is a former federal prosecutor in Minnesota and was apparently familiar with problems with that particular statute.
The three other cops looked bored and matter-of-factly too, like this was just another arrest like hundreds the cop did before. Why would a 19 year veteran, not looking angry, rather calm, want to kill some guy who committed a minor, non-violent offense like passing a phony twenty dollar bill? Is this the first time he arrested a black man? Suddenly he decided to snuff out a man's life because he was black? It doesn't make sense. Other things were going on that we're not being told. There seems to be a rush to judgment because of the politics of it.
-
Rush to judgment? I'd say this was a rush to quell the violence on the street and quiet the call for a hanging. How do you charge a cop with four days on the job and another on his third shift ever? Unfortunately, politics again has raised the stakes. I suspect that one or more will have charges dropped before the trial after things cool down a little. Who'd want to be a cop today?
What we know about the four ex-police officers charged in George Floyd's death
One of the officers had been on the job four days. Another was on his third shift ever. The third was on the force since 2012 and is a Hmong, a tribe from Laos, and an Asian who was the one standing around but apparently never touched the victim. And Derek Chauvin, who pressed his knee into George Floyd's neck, was the field training officer for one of them.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/us/minneapolis-officers-background-george-floyd-trnd/index.html
-
Apparently, based on the deranged outrage in this forum, not just 20-and-30 somethings:
-
Enough.
Jeremy