The Myth of Systemic Racism

[faberryman]

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

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[Chris Kern]

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 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: 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.

[Alan Klein]

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.

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[Alan Klein]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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 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: 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.

[John Camp]

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 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: 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.

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[John Camp]

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.

[James Clark]

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?

[Frans Waterlander]

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.

[Robert Roaldi]

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".

[dreed]

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.

[Rob C]

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.

:-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[Rob C]

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?

[Rob C]

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

[Robert Roaldi]

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?