[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.8781[View All]

File: 1618291766226.png (503.67 KB, 586x906, 293:453, reddie.png) ImgOps Google

Well, I'm confined to this structure by state order, due to the social unrest and potential social unrest triggered by police killing of Daunte Wright.

I can't say I have opinions to express (aside from a desire for survival).  I do have the observation that the state appears to be deciding -- when officers kill a subject who is not posing an imminent threat, at least in the perspective of many, are these killings to be regarded as random accidents, non-random accidents -- racism of some kind, murder, or appropriate state executions.  I've seen many opinions expressed, it is hard to analyze them fully.  You may express yours if you like.  Maybe identify which faith community you are in, so I can group opinions.  But you don't have to.

Otherwise I hope you have a nice Tuesday.
118 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9148

>>9147
What conspiracy are you referring to?

 No.9162

>>9147
I am not so convinced, but I also have no idea what this conspiracy theory your talking about is anyway, so I don't know if this would really go anywhere anyhow

 No.9170

If the war on drugs comes to a complete end, would that mean that incidents such as Floyd's death wouldn't occur like... basically at all anymore? The underlying situations wouldn't even begin to set up? Maybe?

Or am I being naive to the point of stupidity here?

 No.9172

>>9003
Alright, let's try this again.

>No harm was intentional.
I will circle back to intent later.

>This is apparent simply by the hold being taught as a non-lethal hold by the department.

This is not how the law works for the following reasons:
1. Non-lethal doesn't mean non-harmful. If I forced you to the ground and pinned you to the point you couldn't  move (your head and upper body) by placing my knee forcefully into the back of your neck, would you say I did no bodily harm to you? Would you say I did not commit an Assault? Of course you would! And so did Chauvin do to George. This is not something you can actually debate, the definition of bodily harm is clear in the instructions:

"Bodily harm" means physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of a person's physical condition.

A slap in the face is Bodily Harm as the law defines it.

2. That he was trained to do so - or even ordered to do so - does not admonish him from guilt. If you are trained to do an unlawful thing or ordered to do an unlawful thing, that is not actually exonerating of a crime. The jury instructions also go on to explain the following:

"Police Officer" means an employee of a law enforcement agency who is licensed by the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, charged with the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the State of Minnesota and who has the full power of arrest.

Note, being a police office grants you specific powers that are not granted to citizens. One of those is the prevention of crime by force (in essence, what would be Felony Assault for me *may* be lawful for an officer). Let's bring in the definition of Authorized Use of Force by a Police Officer:

No crime is committed if a police officer's actions were justified by the police officer's user of reasonable force in the line of duty in effecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody.

The kind and degree of force a police officer may lawfully use in executing his duties is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is not reasonable. To determine if the actions of the police officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts which a reasonable officer in the same situation would have known at the precise moment the officer acted with force. You must decide whether circumstances confronting the officer and without regard to the officer's own subjective state of mind, intentions, or motivations.

The defendant is not guilty of a crime if he used force as authorized by law.

To prove guilt, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant's use of force was not authorized by law


As it explains, being an officer does not grant you is the full use of force universally for any situation. In fact, your use of force is incredibly restricted! Was forcefully pinning George Floyd by the neck (causing bodily harm) the only option to prevent a crime? Absolutely not! Consider the following:
2.a. George Floyd has not demonstrated a risk of flight. While he is not cooperating with the officers to the fullest, he has given specific cause for why he is failing to comply. That does not mean he is trying to escape, he didn't try to break free when he was being escorted to the car. George Floyd is complying to the best of his ability.

2.b. George Floyd is trying to exit the police car by force. As is provable by the fact he is dead now, he was having a medical emergency in the moment. He was doing his best to explain to the officers he was having an emergency. There is literally no reason for the officers to disbelieve him! He is under arrest for the alleged act of distributing counterfeit bills but we operate on an innocent until proven guilty situation. The arresting officers must have a reasonable reason that George Floyd was lying. His lack of full cooperation is not a cause for lying, because the officers when first putting him into the car failed to heed his attempt to explain his issue. The officers assumed guilt without lawful cause.

2.c. Granted the above, the officers were not lawfully permitted to use this level of force when restraining George as he exited the vehicle. He was handcuffed, the prevention of crime did not necessitate this use of force. The officers were required to use a lower level of force given the circumstances, and if that did not work, then a greater use of force would have been lawful. As the video shows, as George exited the car the officers immediately piled onto him instead of attempted to stand him up or sit him down. They did not grant George the opportunity to comply with a lesser use of force.

2.d. Other people in George's situation may well have lied before. It may have been possible in the minds of the officers that George too was lying. But that other suspects have lied to officers does not grant this officer with this suspect the right to presume guilt. George has to have acted in a way that would have been unreasonable for someone who was having a medical emergency in order to be reasonably dismissed by the officers.

Putting all of the above together the law that we are required to uphold is very clear that:
1. Chauvin used Bodily Force as required by the definition of Felony Assault.
2. The officers had no justifiable reason to disbelieve George when he claimed to have an emergency.
3. The officers did not attempt to use a lesser, justifiable level of force on George before using the level of force that (presumably) caused the death of George.

Next, we can tackle intent. Actually, this is really easy. Because it's without a doubt that Chauvin intended to use the level of force that he did. He didn't accidentally use the hold, did he? This is demonstrably clear. The only defense available is whether his use of force was authorized, which it is clear that it isn't.

Let's go back to Felony Assault:
(1) "Assault" is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another. The intentional infliction of bodily harm requires proof that the Defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to another person with that person's consent and that this act resulted in bodily harm

1. Chauvin's use of the hold was not an accident, it was intentional
2. The use of this form of bodily harm was not lawful for all the reason above

Chauvin has satisfied the first of two requirements of Assault in the Third Degree

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

Rigorously applying the law is exhausting. I am going to stop here. If you want to push the cart down the road again instead of figure out the rest on your own, I will walk you through the definition of substantial bodily harm and I will walk you through "the defendant caused the death of George Floyd" as well if I really need to.

But before that, I would ask whether what you really want right now is Jury Nullification. I think Jury Nullification is cool and I am not a strictly Rule of Law person! If you said that the facts of the case would convict Chauvin of Second Degree Murder but that's fucking stupid and the law is stupid - I would applaud you and move on. What I am arguing right now is the application of the law as written to the facts as recorded and that is really really clear about Chauvin's guilt - despite how anyone feels about whether he should go to prison or not. If what you are operating on is the feeling that he didn't deserve the punishment, please just tell me so and we can move on to whatever you wrote in the prior post which I haven't even had the chance to read fully. If you truly believe that by the strictest, purest interpretation of the law that Chauvin is still innocent, then that's cool too.

But you know, there is almost nobody on the internet who actually cares about that. We're all (myself included until I broke out the jury instructions) just firing off our feelings on the subject and making post hoc rationalization for what we consider should be fair. That's fine, it's a human thing to do. But at this point I'm moving on to the law (as it pertains to this case) and I'd like to know you are too if you decide to proceed.

 No.9174

>>9172
>would you say I did no bodily harm to you?
If you did not leave a mark, yes.
>Would you say I did not commit an Assault?
A different variant of assault, perhaps.
I do not know the specifics of such. I am going off of this.

>A slap in the face is Bodily Harm as the law defines it.
Then perhaps you could post the specific relevant law, as I am going off of this.
Given no marks were left, no injuries caused by his actions, no harm seems to have been caused let alone intentional.

>2. That he was trained to do so - or even ordered to do so - does not admonish him from guilt. If you are trained to do an unlawful thing or ordered to do an unlawful thing, that is not actually exonerating of a crime.
This is true.
However; It does demonstrate a lack of intent to cause injury.
Given it was trained as a non-lethal hold, as well as no marks were left on Floyd's body, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there was intentional harm caused, and subsequently, that it was murder.

Incidentally; If police are guilty of murder every time someone in a non-lethal hold dies of a drug overdose, it's going to be rather impossible to enforce law. So I don't think this application as you seem to frame it would be reasonable, regardless, unless we were to have police just ignore crimes until lethal force is justifiable, and simply shoot, rather than attempt arrest.

>As it explains, being an officer does not grant you is the full use of force universally for any situation.
No, but it would seem that it grants you the ability to use a non-lethal hold on a resisting subject. So I'm not really sure why you bring it up.

>2.a. George Floyd has not demonstrated a risk of flight.
I wouldn't really agree, he was actively resisting.

>While he is not cooperating with the officers to the fullest, he has given specific cause for why he is failing to comply. That does not mean he is trying to escape, he didn't try to break free when he was being escorted to the car
This I cannot accept whatsoever.
His actions when it came to attempts to get him in the vehicle were well beyond simply refusing to comply.
I must say, I find the framing rather dishonest. But I assume that was not your intention.
Nonetheless; There is bodycamera footage linked in this thread at >>8966 which I think you should watch.
Claiming Floyd was non-compliant, but not actively resisting, is simply not true.
>George Floyd is complying to the best of his ability.
This is just plain objectively false.

>2.b. George Floyd is trying to exit the police car by force. As is provable by the fact he is dead now, he was having a medical emergency in the moment. He was doing his best to explain to the officers he was having an emergency.
His claim of medical emergency was that he was claustrophobic, again as evidenced in the video.

>There is literally no reason for the officers to disbelieve him!
I disagree. There's no cause for the officers to believe that he is having a serious medical issue due to claustrophobia.

>His lack of full cooperation is not a cause for lying, because the officers when first putting him into the car failed to heed his attempt to explain his issue.
Stating it as 'lack of full cooperation' is again dishonest, as I see it.
I do not know if you are intentionally doing so, but I would like to assume you are not.
Nonetheless; It is an objective fact that Floyd resisted being put in the car.
Not simply did not comply. Not simply did not cooperate.
Actively resisted.
We have video evidence that proves this to be objective as a matter of fact.

>2.d. Other people in George's situation may well have lied before. It may have been possible in the minds of the officers that George too was lying. But that other suspects have lied to officers does not grant this officer with this suspect the right to presume guilt.
Nor does it grant Floyd innocence when he actively resists.

> George has to have acted in a way that would have been unreasonable for someone who was having a medical emergency in order to be reasonably dismissed by the officers.
Such as actively resisting.

>3. The officers did not attempt to use a lesser, justifiable level of force on George before using the level of force that (presumably) caused the death of George.
This, again, is objectively false.
The video shows this.
They attempted to put him in the car.
They pinned him when he actively resisted going in the car, until it would seem EMTs arrived.

>2. The use of this form of bodily harm was not lawful for all the reason above
I'd still like a source for your definition of bodily harm, as I do not believe it is reasonable that not leaving a single mark on a person whatsoever constitutes felony assault.

> If what you are operating on is the feeling that he didn't deserve the punishment,
Honestly, if he got shot, lynched, hung, or whatever, I really wouldn't give a fuck.
I don't particularly like police.
They are not my friend. Their main duty seems to be steal money from citizens for shit they do every day.
They certainly are not facilitators of justice, as they should be, as many cops lie.

My complaints have nothing to do with Chauvin as a person. I don't like him, I don't care for him in the slightest.
It's worth saying I suppose, I don't care about Floyd either.
But I do care about the sanctity of justice.
I do not think this was a just case, and I think there's a lot of areas which suggest that.
And that gives me a lot of concern. I was already very skeptical of courts, having my own experience on a more minor charge be very negative.
This just looks to me like it doesn't matter what I did or did not do, if I'm looked at wrong by the people doing it, whether it be an angry mob saying they'll continue to riot unless they get what they want, or politicians using me for political points, or even just smaller scale of local communities not liking me, I may well find myself in jail for something I did not do.

But, I digress, this is why I have my rifle. This is why I'm getting a plate carrier. This is why I'm looking at NODs.
If such a thing comes to pass that I'm accused of doing something I did not, I do not think I will willingly go with police.

 No.9175

>>9174
>Then perhaps you could post the specific relevant law, as I am going off of this.

I literally just did.
>>9172
>"Bodily harm" means physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of a person's physical condition.

Are you aware of how a jury and the jury instructions work? Everything you need to understand how to apply the law is right there. You need to throw into the garbage your pop media understanding of the law and start using the document I linked to. It is literally the *only* thing you are allowed to use in determining Chauvin's guilt (in terms of law, the facts you use to apply law is different).

If I force you to the ground and pin you against your will and you struggle against that are you going to tell me that there is no pain involved?

If you say that, then we can't move on and I'm just going to walk away as it will be exceedingly clear that you aren't capable of having this conversation. I'm not reading any of your post beyond that point as I do not have the inclination to converse on this subject with you if you can't operate on this level of law.

 No.9176

File: 1619203269360.png (282.07 KB, 788x852, 197:213, 1619102473455.png) ImgOps Google

>>9175
>I literally just did.
Let me clarify then; I mean a source for the relevant law.

I'd like to see the specific writing for what constitutes felony assault, as I do not believe, as you seemed to suggest, a slap to the face constitutes felony assault.

>You need to throw into the garbage your pop media understanding of the law and start using the document I linked to
Right, then let me clarify;
The information I have in the image here which I believe you're speaking on has two issues for me.

1), Given the lethal amount of drugs in his system, I do not believe the cause of death was pressure to the back of the neck that does not leave a mark.

2), I do not believe a non-lethal pin which leaves no damage to the victim whatsoever constitutes 'felony assault'.

There is also of course the third aspect, although it is not mentioned in the image you linked, that police have authority to restrain a person as necessary, such as an individual actively resisting arrest.

> If I force you to the ground and pin you against your will and you struggle against that are you going to tell me that there is no pain involved?
I might cause pain to myself when I struggle against it. But, no, a pin like depicted I do not believe would cause significant pain on its own.

>If you say that, then we can't move on and I'm just going to walk away as it will be exceedingly clear that you aren't capable of having this conversation.
>"AGREE WITH ME OR U NO ABLE 2 HAV CONVERSATON"
M8.

>I'm not reading any of your post beyond that point as I do not have the inclination to converse on this subject with you if you can't operate on this level of law.
Then by all means leave, as I do not particularly care to continue a debate with someone who lacks the maturity to listen to those who disagree with them without jumping to conclusions and acting as though they're 100% infallible, while anyone who says otherwise is simply incapable of conversation.

If you cannot engage with what is being said, it's not going to be a great loss to me if you leave.
If anything, that simply ensures this conversation doesn't devolve into a pissing contest, which is definitely a net positive to me, as I'd rather talk about the facts of the matter without someone insisting I'm wrong without argument.

 No.9177

>>9176
>Let me clarify then; I mean a source for the relevant law.
It. Doesn't. Matter. That's not how a court of law works.

 No.9178

>>9177
You mean the court works instead by the random statements of some anon, without legal basis?
What a shock!

Of course that's not the case. You're well aware of this, so I have no idea why you're pretending otherwise.

Didn't you say you weren't going to continue? If you aren't going to respond to my points and instead make low-effort potshots, I'm afraid it's quite thoroughly unlikely we're going to get anywhere productive.

Maybe try taking a seat for a bit, seeing if a calmer head will serve you better, and then looking back on my posts in >>9174 and >>9176 ,and actually address the arguments made.
What you are doing now serves nobody, and just makes you look bad.

 No.9180

>>9176
>Let me clarify then; I mean a source for the relevant law.
>
>I'd like to see the specific writing for what constitutes felony assault, as I do not believe, as you seemed to suggest, a slap to the face constitutes felony assault.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609

 No.9181

>>9178
I am literally quoting you the jury instructions and you are saying 'nah, I disagree with the court on how the law works'. If you do not understand how the law works, and I tell you how the law works and provide sources to how the law works, it's on you that you have failed to apply even the most basic level of intellectual honesty.

I'm not moving forward until you acknowledge the opening paragraphs of the Jury Instructions:

====================
Duties of Judge and Jury

It is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case. It is my duty to give you the rules of law you must apply in arriving at your verdict.

You have now heard the evidence and soon you will hear the arguments of counsel. At this time, I will instruct you in the law applicable to this case. You must follow an apply the rules of law as I give them to you, even if you believe the law i or should be different. ...
====================

Definitions of Words and Phrases

I am about to instruct you on the law you are to apply to the charges and the defense. Before doing so, however, I am going to define a few words and phrases that appear more than once in elements of the charges and the defense that follows. The words and phrases being define are bolded in the written copy of these instructions you will be receiving. You should use these definitions for these words and phrases in your deliberations

=======================

Bodily harm means physical pain and injury, illness, or any impairment of a person's physical conditions

=======================

Assault is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.


======================


That's it dude, that's all we need right this second. We are going to isolate this completely. I don't care if it lead to his death or not, I do not care about his intentions, I do not care if he was trained to do so, I do not care if it is lawful use of force. It's just one singular unit of fact right here and now.

Did the hold Chauvin use cause any quantity of pain, illness, or physical impairment?

Yes or no. that's all I need.

 No.9183

>>9178
Actually, just read this whole damn thing first. I doubt you've even looked at it at all

https://www.scribd.com/document/503646077/Jury-Instructions-in-Derek-Chauvin-trial#download&from_embed

 No.9184

File: 1619204826657.png (51.72 KB, 846x419, 846:419, cutout.png) ImgOps Google

>>9180
So, going by your text here, it appears to require to quote
>"Substantial bodily harm."
Now, what constitutes "substantial" is not listed, but I would think it reasonable to presume that if a person does not have a single mark on their body as a consequence of the supposed assault would not constitute "substantial".

>>9183
Conveniently, yours does define it! I'll get another screenshot in a moment, and just separate the posts for it.
>"Substantial bodily harm means bodily harm that involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, that causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or that causes a fracture of any bodily member".
Going by the definitions supplied here, Chauvin did not, as a matter of objective fact, commit substantial bodily harm, and thus, did not, as objective fact, commit assault in the third degree.

 No.9185

File: 1619205201112.png (289.13 KB, 929x706, 929:706, 1586024133456.png) ImgOps Google

>>9181
>If you do not understand how the law works, and I tell you how the law works and provide sources to how the law works, it's on you that you have failed to apply even the most basic level of intellectual honesty.
Until post >>9183 , you have failed to provide a source beyond the image I linked >>9176 , which formed the basis for my disagreement.

If you have to resort to insults, I would suggest you clearly lack the emotional maturity to continue this conversation.
I'd advise you, given how quickly you've gone to personal attacks, to do as you said prior and leave.
Nobody is forcing you to stay.

>You have now heard the evidence and soon you will hear the arguments of counsel. At this time, I will instruct you in the law applicable to this case. You must follow an apply the rules of law as I give them to you, even if you believe the law i or should be different. ...
And this is why I disagree.
The law, as I see it, does not constitute a murder conviction, as 3rd degree felony assault did not occur.

>Bodily harm means physical pain and injury, illness, or any impairment of a person's physical conditions
>Assault is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.
And FELONY ASSAULT IN THE 3RD DEGREE requires SUBSTANTIAL bodily harm.

Substantial bodily harm is defined in the item you link as
>"bodily harm that involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, that causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or that causes a fracture of any bodily member".
This did not occur.
Thus, by the law cited, Chauvin was not guilty of felony assault in the 3rd degree, and subsequently, not guilty of murder.

>Did the hold Chauvin use cause any quantity of pain, illness, or physical impairment?
Subsequent to a different standard than 3rd degree felony assault, as was my initial statement, quite likely.
However, he did not cause SUBSTANTIAL bodily harm.
This is required for felony assault in the 3rd degree, as per >>9184

 No.9186

>>9184
>Chauvin did not, as a matter of objective fact, commit substantial bodily harm
OK, but the charge doesn't require that he actually committed it.  The charge says "committing or attempting to commit".

 No.9187

>>9185
>Until post >>9183 , you have failed to provide a source
It was linked from the article that that was linked in >>8960.

 No.9188

>>9187
Fair enough. It's a shame it took until now to point that out, when I had asked for it.

Although, it still lacked the standard for assault in the 3rd degree, it must be said.
>>9186
>OK, but the charge doesn't require that he actually committed it.  The charge says "committing or attempting to commit".
Chauvin did not attempt to commit substantial bodily harm. Would seem rather apparent to me.
If he did, Floyd'd've at least had bruising on his neck.
The guy was on said neck for quite a while. Or, I should say, on Floyd, as the footage suggests he moved positions a few times.

I do not see cause to suggest at any point Chauvin was attempting or committing felony assault in the 3rd degree, as per relevant law in >>9180

 No.9189

>>9188
>Although, it still lacked the standard for assault in the 3rd degree, it must be said.
Yes.  "Substantial bodily harm" requires either a temporary injury or a fracture.  Given that Floyd died during the event, none of his injuries can be said to be temporary.  And none of his bones were fractured.

 No.9190

>>9189
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying if someone is injured by something unrelated, such as in this case death by overdose on drugs, anyone who has touched them is guilty of felony assault?
Or are you saying it's not felony assault in the 3rd degree, because any possible injuries aren't temporary due to the death?

My understanding of the term was that it is just to say significant injury that do not constitute "great bodily harm", and thus a higher level of assault.

 No.9191

>>9188
>Chauvin did not attempt to commit substantial bodily harm. Would seem rather apparent to me.
>If he did, Floyd'd've at least had bruising on his neck.
I dunno.  How long does it take for a bruise to form, and can the process continue after the person has died?  I don't have enough medical knowledge to answer.

 No.9192

File: 1619206456049.png (40.16 KB, 807x462, 269:154, rwq.png) ImgOps Google

>>9191
Having had many bruisings, it takes seconds for them to form.

While I am not a doctor, I think there was more than enough time for a bruise to form where Floyd was alive while being held, going off my personal experiences with bruising.

I don't know about after death, though. But, given a dead body can bleed shortly after death, and given what a bruise is, I don't really see why they wouldn't be present.
A bruise is a rupture of blood vessels under the skin.

 No.9193

>>9190
>Are you saying if someone is injured by something unrelated, such as in this case death by overdose on drugs, anyone who has touched them is guilty of felony assault?
No.

>Or are you saying it's not felony assault in the 3rd degree, because any possible injuries aren't temporary due to the death?
Yes.

 No.9194

File: 1619206631492.png (82.87 KB, 863x673, 863:673, keyboard.png) ImgOps Google

>>9193
It's an interesting perspective, although I think it violates the 'spirit' of the law.
Can your charge be increased while going through a court case like that?
'Cause if so, trying to argue it might be a bad move, given it could kick you to assault in the 1st degree instead.

Or, I suppose if you're arguing timeframe, abuse of a body, which might be a lesser sentence.
I don't know the specifics of that, though.

 No.9195

>>9192
>Having had many bruisings, it takes seconds for them to form.
I see.

>>9194
>I think it violates the 'spirit' of the law.
Yeah, it's a kinda oddly defined.

>'Cause if so, trying to argue it might be a bad move, given it could kick you to assault in the 1st degree instead.
Yes.  Even if "significant bodily harm" doesn't apply, "great bodily harm" might apply, with increased punishment.

 No.9196

I would like to politely ask the two of you to step back, take a deep breath, drink something, and otherwise commit to fundamentally changing the personal attack filled and negative nature of this discussion.

I would like to understand more ad to why the police officer's treatment by the legal system is seen by some to be wrong, and this style of argument is acting as a kind of metaphorical traffic jam preventing that flow.

 No.9197

>>9196
To whom are you talking?  I don't think any of my recent posts were personal attacks?

 No.9198

>>9185
>, you have failed to provide a source beyond the image I linke

>>8960
>That's fair. Conveniently we can look the jury instructions in this particular murder trial!
>https://patch.com/minnesota/southwestminneapolis/read-jury-instructions-given-derek-chauvin-trial

That was linked to you here:
>>9002

Anyway, I have read literally no words of any posts besides this part. I'll come back to this later and evaluate where we are.

 No.9199

File: 1619207928679.png (51.72 KB, 846x419, 846:419, cutout.png) ImgOps Google

>>9198
See >>9188
It's a shame that couldn't've been pointed to in a more level headed manner earlier on.

My assumption at the time was that was a link to the image you posted, and not the deeper definitions. I think it's due to it being an article, as opposed to the later-linked direct text document. This was a mistake.

>Anyway, I have read literally no words of any posts besides this part. I'll come back to this later and evaluate where we are.
That's alright. It's what I suggested in >>9178

I'm still interested in discussing this, especially given the statute on felony 3rd degree assault.

 No.9200

>>9199
>It's a shame that couldn't've been pointed to in a more level headed manner earlier on.
I assumed that you read what I linked, considering you've multiple times now called me out on not reading sources and watching things.

It would go a long way if you would just admit your fault - as I have in this thread multiple times - than to keep putting your failure to look at the source on me.

 No.9201

>>9200
I don't think Deer ever 'called you out' for not reading sources, or not watching things.

 No.9202

>>9201
Good catch, I fixed the link

It appears to me you are pathologically incapable of accepting any level of blame for anything dude. I don't think that makes you intellectually dishonest or a shitty person, but it's really unpleasant to talk to you under these terms. Is it foolish of me to believe you have any intention of changing that? Or will you point out how unpleasant I am instead?

 No.9203

>>9202

>>9199
>This was a mistake.
Looks like I'm wrong. Alright, I'm an asshole for that. Still, it's not untrue that you are incredibly stubbornly difficult to argue with. But so be it.

 No.9204

>>9202
OK, so, you're linking a post where I said I made a mistake... To say I can't admit I make mistakes...

And I am somehow the one with pathological issues?

 No.9205

>>9203
I mean, I'd say the same to you, man.
You certainly seem very stubborn to me as well.
And I at least made an effort to reply to your posts in full, rather than making one-line quips and throwing around insults.

Sorry I missed the link. Like I said, I misunderstood what it was showing, as it looked like a rather typical news article with the usual 1 paragraph post and a bunch of popups and links to other unrelated things.
That's my bad. Should've double-checked.
Don't get why it's cause to chuck around names, though.

 No.9206

>>9204
I am at the point I stop reading your posts when you say something that's egregious, such as blaming me for your failure to read what I provided. So I did not actually get to the "This was my mistake" part.

That's how it is right now, because for the entire day you have been saying at me over and over that I am wrong about the things I said in that source. That the most basic facts that nobody on the planet can argue with are wrong. This because I assumed you read the materials I provided and you didn't. A miscommunication.

>>9205
>Don't get why it's cause to chuck around names, though.
Look, understand my position please. It feels like you've been gaslighting the fuck out of me all day. And that takes a real toll on someone.

How about this, you've made a decent apology there and I accept it. I apologized for being reckless about the way we have tried to reconcile that point.

Do you feel like we can move forward on these terms or should we just put the thread to rest?

 No.9207

File: 1619209753493.png (154.46 KB, 895x594, 895:594, Capture.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>9206
And rather than seek to clarify the miscommunication, you resorted to insults, and stopped reading my posts...

I still disagree with your conclusions of the case regardless, as I disagree with these three items here listed in that document.
I do not think Chauvin caused the death.
I do not think Chauvin intentionally engaged in an act that was dangerous.
I do not think Chauvin acted recklessly or indifferently to life when he did it.
I do not think any of these have been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, which is the whole point of the case.

>Look, understand my position please. It feels like you've been gaslighting the fuck out of me all day. And that takes a real toll on someone.
If by that you mean arguing with someone who disagrees takes a toll, certainly.
I don't really think any 'gaslighting' occurred here, and I find the term loaded with paranoia.
It just doesn't seem like a healthy consideration to me.

Still, I can certainly understand the stress of disagreement, especially when you feel you are not being understood.

>How about this, you've made a decent apology there and I accept it. I apologized for being reckless about the way we have tried to reconcile that point.
>Do you feel like we can move forward on these terms or should we just put the thread to rest?
I appreciate it. And yes. I would still like to hear your feelings on the requirements for felony assault in the 3rd degree, as well as the stuff pointed out here.
It's an interesting conversation, and especially thanks to the link from Orca >>9180 , I'm learning things I didn't actually know about the specifics here.

 No.9208

>>9206
>I am at the point I stop reading your posts when you say something that's egregious
Hmm, that seems extremely likely to lead to miscommunication.  Probably best to either fully read his posts or just to ignore them entirely.  Trying to have a conservation with someone with a significant fraction of uncorrected data loss seems likely to lead to frustration.

 No.9209

>>9207
>If by that you mean arguing with someone who disagrees takes a toll, certainly.
>I don't really think any 'gaslighting' occurred here, and I find the term loaded with paranoia.

To be clear, you weren't[ gaslighting, but it feels like it to me. For instance, I put a definition of Assault out and you say that's not the definition of Assault and you want to see the law as defined. And I just showed you the law as defined! I show you the definition of bodily harm and you say it's not, I tell you a slap meets the criteria of bodily harm and you ask for the law which says that. That's again a miscommunication and we shouldn't see it as anything but unfortunately in retrospect. But, can you tell me honestly you would keep a perfectly level head under those circumstances with someone you were arguing with? If you could, well then I applaud you - and that's from someone who is practically famous for their patience with people who disagree with them. You probably don't feel like I've been very patient, but you are sitting on the side who wasn't making post after post contradicting basic fact.

>>9208
I do not disagree, but we are all human and we fuck up and are driven to do things which are imperfect.

I would also like to point out, I am pathological. I have ADHD and that changes the way I think and process information and what I do and don't focus on. I also realize I forgot to take my afternoon medication, so that's not helping either. I do apologize for my least helpful mannerisms but I'm doing my literal best here and whatever understanding can be afforded would be appreciated.

 No.9210

>>9209
And to be clear it's nobody's fault by my own if me having ADHD is problematic. Just want to be sure i'm owning that part myself. I hate it when a person can't own their shit.

Anyway, I do need to get back to work and finish out my day. I'm grateful that we've basically worked out the miscommunication. I'll try to get back to discuss >>9207 later

 No.9211

Can you <both> agree to apologize to each other and <both> vow to behave better?

If a situation in which both sides are clearly in the wrong and have acted incredibly uncivilly results in the situation in which the "liberal side" is made to deliberately take one in for having "lost" and the "conservative side" is made to deliberately feel good for having "won", then that would be not just unfair and unfortunate but would essentially make me unable as an observer to learn any actual information when I'd politely like to be informed (without having to join the arguments).

 No.9214

File: 1619212317430.png (282.07 KB, 788x852, 197:213, 1.png) ImgOps Google

>>9209
The reason I said that is I don't think in terms of gaslighting, so I can't empathize. Gaslighting is an odd thing, to me, that doesn't really come up in my thinking.
Perhaps it's just my unfamiliarity with the term, or a different set of confidence in thinking.  Either way, I just don't "get" gaslighting.

>For instance, I put a definition of Assault out and you say that's not the definition of Assault and you want to see the law as defined.
To clarify that issue, since I'm guessing you're referring to >>9174
>"Then perhaps you could post the specific relevant law, as I am going off of this."
this was because the post in >>9172 did not itself contain any source, and while you I am guessing were quoting from the source, that was not apparent to me. And so I asked.

Typically, when I see quotes, they're in greentext or at least have ["] marks around them, which evidently caused confusion. If I had realized you were quoting from something, I would've likely said "Could you please provide a link to what you're quoting".

Incidentally, "this" was actually supposed to be this image here. Ponyville was giving issues at the time of writing that post, with repeated failures to go through for some reason.
That might've helped clarify, if it had gone through.

> But, can you tell me honestly you would keep a perfectly level head under those circumstances with someone you were arguing with?
To some extent.
I tend to get longer, in my writing, and start saying things like "Again. ..." before I continue with a post, often linking directly back to what I said.

This... Usually doesn't help.
Flooding people with text explaining every last inch of the fly on the wall in the courtroom's wing isn't all that productive to getting to the root issues.
But I do try to avoid more overt behavior.

And, I will say, I had gotten to that point a few times throughout this, too..

 No.9215

>>9211
I think we have at this point.

>If a situation in which both sides are clearly in the wrong and have acted incredibly uncivilly results in the situation in which the "liberal side" is made to deliberately take one in for having "lost" and the "conservative side" is made to deliberately feel good for having "won", then that would be not just unfair and unfortunate but would essentially make me unable as an observer to learn any actual information when I'd politely like to be informed (without having to join the arguments).
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are getting at here.
This matter isn't really about politics at all, in that way. And I don't think anyone 'won' here, either.  

 No.9217

>>9215
An apology doesn't mean much at all if the party offering it unconditionally refuses to change their behavior and learn from the situation in any way.

It additionally means even less when coming in a situation to which two parties have done something wrong and only one of them is willing to reflect on the situation honestly.

 No.9218

I admit that I am without a doubt absolutely biased in this respect to an incredible degree, as I do not believe that the police in the United States of America are in any way shape or form an honorable institution and in fact only seem to exist in order to violate my rights.

I do not enjoy the fact that my government might soon refuse to allow me to protect myself in a certain way to the point of invading my home, fully intending to murder me if I do not comply with this.

It makes it even worse that I do not practically have the freedom of speech to ever criticize police agencies ever, because any desire for any change at all is ruthlessly punished severely. "Back the blue". "Blue lives matter". Etc.

 No.9219

Sorry for the tangent. I just want to be up front that I have black colored glasses in this area and thus I'm likely to be unfairly unsympathetic.

 No.9220

>>9214
While I'm chilling here, I'll add that I have actually been in multiple really abusive narcissist relationships where gaslighting was regularly used. Throwing doubt on reality, asserting untrue things as facts, blaming me for every possible thing without any remorse, that kind of thing. I've done a bunch of therapy over it and I'm *basically* fine now but it's actually kinda interesting that you point out you don't think in terms like that. When I put it out there like this, it's kinda obvious there are parallels between my lived experiences and how I reacted in this thread.

I wonder if anyone is ever truly fine after living through that kind of thing. I've already kinda come to terms with having to manage certain things for the rest of my life. I already know I have to be careful not to jump to the idea that anyone is acting abusively, and that was even on my mind while handling this thread. But upon reflection it's very interesting the particular things which I honed in on as offensive and how I reacted to that feeling.

I'm just speaking out loud here, doing these kind of critical assessments about my behavior are really important to improving. I think this is actually pretty neat, I've got some things I need to think about and target for further processing.

>>9217
I dunno which one of us you mean - i have an assumption. But I feel pretty satisfied with Badgers handling of the reconciliation process. Nobody acted perfectly, but as long as everyone is doing their best to act on a good faith basis I'm happy.

 No.9222

>>9217
Well, that's a matter of how things go on, isn't it?
That'll be for time to tell.

>It additionally means even less when coming in a situation to which two parties have done something wrong and only one of them is willing to reflect on the situation honestly.
Again I would ask what you mean, as it seemed to be going fine to me.

I'm certainly going to double-check, next time.
In retrospect, I think they were using bold to mark 'quoted' items.

>>9218
>I do not believe that the police in the United States of America are in any way shape or form an honorable institution and in fact only seem to exist in order to violate my rights.
Same.
>I do not enjoy the fact that my government might soon refuse to allow me to protect myself in a certain way to the point of invading my home, fully intending to murder me if I do not comply with this.
Same.
>It makes it even worse that I do not practically have the freedom of speech to ever criticize police agencies ever, because any desire for any change at all is ruthlessly punished severely. "Back the blue". "Blue lives matter". Etc.
We've fortunately still got the legal right, but you are not wrong that plenty of departments engage in retributive acts on those who critique them.
It's no good. There definitely needs to be change.

 No.9228

>>9222
>In retrospect, I think they were using bold to mark 'quoted' items.

Originally I tried using [tt] to write quotes. But - this is going to be silly - at work i use a command line program called "hh" and I wrote the tags like [hh] which obviously didn't work. Because I knew it was important that the quotes stood out as not my words I needed to fix it. But since the auto updater on this site doesn't update a post when a user updates it, i tried to beat out everyone who loaded the page before the mistake wasn't as easily fixable. So I made it bold, even though that's a really weird choice for quoted text.

In a different timeline that I got a job at a different company, my quotes would have looked like this 

 No.9246

>>9220
>>9222
That's terrible. I'm so sorry that these negative experiences have been happening in your personal life over and over again, and I wish you both the best this weekend.

 No.9250

Not that it matters so much to announce it, but I'm booked up tonight and saturday so I'll hopefully pick up where we left off sunday afternoon.

>>9246
Thanks, I'm doing pretty well for myself nowadays and it's rarely relevant anymore. But the past does sneak up on you from time to time.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]