[ 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[Last 50 Posts]

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.

 No.8782

File: 1618363285787.jpg (194.95 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, holo-1408590481607.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8781
At least according to Wikipedia, it looks like the female cop meant to taze him but she fucked up and instead accidentally used her firearm instead of her tazer.  Clearly a case of wrongful death and possibly criminally negligent.  But it doesn't justify the """protesters""" going apeshit insane and burning down stores, especially without even giving the justice system a chance to process the case.  And it's not even a case of racism, AFAIK.

>Maybe identify which faith community you are in, so I can group opinions.
I'm an atheist.


>when officers kill a subject who is not posing an imminent threat
To intentionally kill someone who is not an imminent threat is generally illegal, even for cops, unless the subject poses a very high risk of committing a serious violent crime in the near future (e.g., a serial killer, an assassin who would try again if he isn't stopped, someone escaping with stolen TS-SCI information) or has been duly convicted and sentenced to death by a court of competent jurisdiction.

 No.8783

>>8782
Wright's death does seem to be an accident, but states can not afford officers that make such accidents so something may have to be done.  The George Floyd case is a more important decision.

 No.8784

>>8782
As I understand it the protests are largely over the fact without the protests gross negligence and straight up murder would generally be swept under the rug, usually with the injured party branded as a violent criminal so that the police don't have to hold themselves accountable.

 No.8785

>>8784
That is the excuse a lot of people seem to give, but I don't really buy it.
If anything, I've seen the direct reverse.
People assume someone is awful because the 'protesters' support them.
I guess after you burn down people's livelihood enough, they stop really caring and it starts becoming an 'us vs them' type of deal.

And either way, I think crying racism makes a great shield. Makes the case not about any specific action, but just whether or not it was racially motivated. Police can then ignore the more difficult for them questions, and focus instead on pointing out what's false so that they can act like the whole thing is.

 No.8786

>To intentionally kill someone who is not an imminent threat is generally illegal, even for cops
Perhaps.  I'm not a lawyer so I have no credible idea about what legal means.  Is all that cops do that is not specifically decided by court to be  illegal legal?

>>8785
The protests do make many angry.  You think the goal is to increase support for law enforcement by associating demands for change with riot and damage.  I see.

 No.8787

File: 1618499001203.png (307.67 KB, 1024x1280, 4:5, holo-moon.png) ImgOps Google

>>8786
> Is all that cops do that is not specifically decided by court to be illegal legal?
No, I think you're confusing legality with the concept of qualified immunity.  Qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".  In terms of criminal liability, cops have the same duty to obey the law as do ordinary citizens, and they are subject (at least in theory) to the same system of criminal justice as ordinary citizens when they break the law.  (Qualified immunity does not apply to criminal prosecution of cops; it applies only to civil lawsuits.)

 No.8788

>>8787
Hmm...the concept still does not appear very useful.  I suspect an officer who prefers to do what a particular subjects sees as illegal would consider the comment, "Officer, this is illegal!" as disrespectful, especially in an escalated situation.  After the situation, important people may decide what legal means -- as has been happening in the court cases -- but I don't know what role legal has for individuals, except as general rules they may be punished for disobeying -- but rules that they may know only vaguely, not being lawyers or judges.

 No.8789

>>8788
>I suspect an officer ... would consider the comment, "Officer, this is illegal!" as disrespectful, especially in an escalated situation.
Legal arguments should generally be addressed to a court, not to a cop.  

 No.8790

>>8789
Well, the court will decide whether it is legal for cops to suffocate subjects to death, specifically George Floyd.  Right now, some think it was appropriate, some do not.  There will probably be civil unrest when the decision is made.

 No.8791

File: 1618626750680.png (115.95 KB, 750x1500, 1:2, MikotoT_body.png) ImgOps Google

>>8790
>Well, the court will decide whether it is legal for cops to suffocate subjects to death, specifically George Floyd.  Right now, some think it was appropriate, some do not.
Practically nobody thinks it would be appropriate for a cop to intentionally suffocate a suspect to death in any situation like that of George Floyd.  The people who think that Derek Chauvin is innocent generally argue that Chauvin reasonably believed that his actions would not kill Floyd.  Many of them believe that George Floyd died from a fentanyl overdose and would have died regardless of what the cops did.

 No.8792

>>8791
The decision then is only whether it was murder or accident, nothing to do with cops right to execute.  That sounds mundane, as I image there are many killings that might be murder or accident.  Why is there civil unrest?

 No.8793

File: 1618723577820.jpg (115.43 KB, 860x960, 43:48, 9434b1925cc8264648f7fe2a7d….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8792
>Why is there civil unrest?
Mainly because the radical SJWs managed to get people to blame police killings on (non-existent) 'racism'.  If you look at the actual data, there are no statistically significant racial disparities in deadly use-of-force by the police.

 No.8794

>>8793
Even if that's true (no racism), the unrest is still warranted given how frequently police use excessive and lethal force in inappropriate situations. It doesn't have to be about racism for the police to still desperately need a reform that isn't happening.

 No.8795

File: 1618776366593.jpg (57.6 KB, 850x850, 1:1, 134446002843.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8794
I'd say that police brutality justifies peaceful protest but does not justify looting or arson of unrelated businesses.

 No.8796

>>8794
Trouble there is that the argument used is not simply "don't use excessive force", it got tied into race, which in turn made it a partisan matter for some.

I agree with police reform.
I disagree with racialized police reform.

>>8795
Also this.

While I might want police reform, I do not trust the people who would destroy my livelihood to create a fair handed and just police that protect me and my property.

 No.8797

>>8795
Riots are the language of the unheard. Very little is being done to fix the system and people are upset. That doesn't mean i approve of looting and arson, just that it's pretty understandable the way people are reacting. We can be critical of the rioters response to inaction, no objection there. But ultimately this is on the government and police for the abject failure to address the issues from within.

>>8796
I don't really disagree with anything you said. The way the narrative has been shaped is unfortunate. Sane police reforms would be hugely beneficial to all people regardless of race, but like you said it's now a partisan mess.

 No.8798

>>8797
If the riots were focused on government property, I might agree with you. Even if looting occurred, just directed at state offices and such things.
But when the "language of the unheard" decides to attack innocent people who had nothing to do with their problems, it gives the impression that it's just an excuse.

 No.8799

>>8798
Sometimes the riots are on government property, but it's incredibly difficult to control a riot. There's a lot of interesting psychology in play during crowd based situations.

That said, I'm still not exactly excusing that behavior, causing harm to unrelated parties out of a grievance with the government is not acceptable. I guess my point is, if we are going to look at this situation as an outsider, to focus the bulk of our criticism for the government institution which is mistreating the citizenry than the citizenry that lashes out in response. I originally created a post explaining to Cheeky Orca that the unrest is not merely crazed SJWs, my only point here is to combat that narrative because all it serves is to de-legitimatize the demand for reform. If we look at the unrest and say it's purely bad actors - end of story - then we are reducing a very nuance rich situation to one in which actually its good we have a heavily militarized police which can combat the crowds. This isn't always the case of course, but it's not uncommon that the police antagonize and try to start riots with the protesters because they know a riot will be really bad optics for a movement which is trying to demand the police reform.

 No.8800

>>8793
I see.  So the legal consequences of police executions reliably label this practice murder.  Murder apparently can not be completely eliminated from society, and police are people.  Presumably the state effectively controls all other kinds of police force as well.  It is only SJW's that convince otherwise, and cause protest of policing habits.  I suppose I can classify this as a conspiracy theory -- a few evil people with power to delude masses.

 No.8801

File: 1618868801086.png (762.47 KB, 728x683, 728:683, 1466205728968.png) ImgOps Google

>>8800
>reliably label this practice murder.
Technically, the cop who killed Daunte Wright was charged with second-degree manslaughter (Minnesota Statutes Section 609.205), not murder.  The difference is that the manslaughter offense requires only "culpable negligence creating unreasonable risk", whereas murder generally requires premeditation, not merely negligence.

>>8800
> It is only SJW's that convince otherwise, and cause protest of policing habits.
Well, as >>8794 pointed out, I was sloppy in what I said in >>8793.  There are certainly legitimate grievances about police misbehavior.  What the SJWs do is taint these grievances with racial tensions and drive people to lawlessly riot rather than peacefully protest.

>I suppose I can classify this as a conspiracy theory -- a few evil people with power to delude masses.
I don't think there's any conspiracy, just individual SJWs acting spouting nonsense on Twitter and CNN, etc.

 No.8808

I suppose the fundamental issue here is that in de facto terms law enforcement in America is untouchable and due to the "blue code of silence" an officer can do all manner of crimes, from minor to serious, with the absolute certainty of knowing that they will never be held accountable.

In de jure terms, laws are supposed to also apply to police officers. And the mitigating factors that this shooting appears to have been accidentally (as well as without any particular malice as far as motivation goes, like there's nothing cited to prove racist intent) would make punishment lighter than otherwise, but some appropriate punishment would still occur. Supposedly.

I'm honestly not sure how to change this situation in the U.S. Ending 'qualified immunity' is only step one. When nearly all members of the U.S. legal system from the level of judges to district attorneys all the way down to clerks support the "blue code of silence" cultural attitude... what then? Society has to change. And that's difficult to say the least.

 No.8825

>>8799
Let me clarify my position, then:

By actively causing more damage than the police ever did, as well as jumping on situations where wrongful action may well not even be present before the evidence, in addition to tying it to arbitrary characteristics that do not seem to apply in the situations, and further trying to create reform based around this plethora of misinformation and racialized thinking, you delegitimize yourself.

The damage cannot reasonably be pinned primarily on the actions of the officers being protested, as those actions weren't even known before the rioting occurred, and have nothing to do with the people being attacked in those riots primarily.

The police who refused to crack down on the violent rioters can be blamed, as their inaction, and worse in some cases outright facilitation by hounding those who would defend themselves, can definitely be blamed.
But that is not the goal of those who claim to be protesting, so I would still consider them to be illegitimate, in any case.

Unrest in and of itself is not bad.
Unrest targeting innocent people based on bad information without even waiting to see what happens let alone for the facts to come out as well as demanding absurd changes that help no one is definitely,  100% bad.

 No.8829

>>8825
It should be pointed out that American law enforcement have semi-open policies that they only tend to care about possible violence against **them** and treat violence against random individuals nearby as a far, far lesser priority.

Thus, a protest in which, say, neo-Nazis march in a historically Jewish neighborhood will typically get a tiny, tiny fraction of the police response that, say, an antifa event in front of a courthouse meant to directly agitate against 'authority' will get.

I'm really not sure how to fix this problem.

At the same time, common sense applies... we should admit that as Americans the cops will often allow rioters and others to freely destroy all kinds of property and threaten (even directly harm) passersby. They'll let that happen only to then, when somebody is even just perceived as possibly confronting them when they're on the streets, showing no mercy. Any political debates on rioting must involve acknowledging this fact. Otherwise, we are kidding ourselves.

 No.8831

>>8829
I agree that police and the government generally only cares when they themselves are threatened.
This plays into the same hand, however.

Destroying innocent people's livelihoods won't change the government's minds.
All you do is turn people against you, as they beg the state to save them.

It's more example of BLM delegitimizing themselves.

 No.8834

>>8831
I'm not sure where this all ends.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'd like to point out that a kind of ideological death spiral is going on.

Because the police refuses to protect regular people against the likes of white nationalists and other far right political extremists (while also, it must be said, doing a horrible job in many areas in even enforcing basic laws against carjacking, mugging, rape, and the like), the viewpoint gets spread that the cops are in some either practical sense or real sense 'on the side of' far right politics.

This makes the anti-far-right social movements (many of themselves, such as antifa, being politically extremist and hateful themselves but just in the other direction) decide to get even more militant and even more confrontational. This mob activity winds up in violence against both authority figures and regular individuals caught in the crossfire. But that's not the end of it.

Because law enforcement only partially acts against violence, a direct incentive structure happens. The greedy loon throwing bricks into a Target and stealing a television is safe and sound. The fair-minded journalist who's trying to cover a street situation knows that they can be put into the hospital by a police officer at any moment should that cop decided that they don't like what's being reported.

As time on, people rationally respond to incentives. More violence against regular people and their property. More violence from the police against people seen as a threat to them, regardless of whether or not it's appropriate. More militancy by social movements looking for change.

 No.8839

>>8834
Since when do police not go after far right types?
When they break the law, they absolutely do.
It seems to be the left who get predominately more freedom to behave indiscriminately, as already pointed to. They can destroy as they please unthreatened, whereas far more peaceful action by the right immediately is hounded by everyone possible.

Again, I fear I'm back to this being the action of malicious groups lying to people.
That certainly seems to be the case repeatedly with the portrayals when it comes to police shootings 90% of the time, so I'm not sure how to see this strange point differently.

Either way, whether we believe your breakdown or not, the solution is behave morally.
When you act like an immoral beast you will be treated as such.  People we ask you to be treated as such. They will arm the people who treat you like such
And none of this unjustly.

If you cannot behave morally, why should I care about your claimed reasons for riot, anyway? It would appear as though they don't hold up to their own moral scrutiny, so why should I care for their demands?

 No.8843

>>8839
I believe that your characterization of the facts is objectively false in a night-versus-day sense. I'm not sure what else to say, there. Admittedly, because I'm not right-wing, I might be unexposed to police actions against far right extremists that I should otherwise know about. I don't think that that's the case, though.

>"the solution is behave morally"
That is with absolute certainty not the solution. At all. People are already doing that.

If you protest criminal actions by law enforcement in any capacity, or if you report on such protests, or even if you happen to be a bystander in the neighborhood, you must fear that cops will come after you and maybe even put you in the hospital as a result of being perceived as against them. Morality is irrelevant. You can be as sweet as a fresh cherry and wind up blind in one eye or worse.

>"If you cannot behave morally, why should I care about your claimed reasons for riot, anyway? It would appear as though they don't hold up to their own moral scrutiny, so why should I care for their demands?"
At a very basic level, somebody can be a generally horrible person and still be right about something, especially a factual observation. Hitler was right about the utility of Volkswagens. He also made nice paintings.

To be less glib, it must be pointed out that the vast majority of anti-police-brutality protests have been nonviolent and that the rare instances of rioting have in most if not all cases been caused by intentional police violence against peaceful protests. At some point when people are tired of being abused, they might, even though it's indeed morally wrong, throw some abuse back. That's understandable.

 No.8863

>>8843
In that case it may well simply be that we cannot find agreement come up by virtue of radically different worldviews as consequence of our perspectives.

From my perspective, it is left wing violence that is underplayed.
From yours evidently it is right wing.
This tribalistic split puts peace as unlikely.
I will, however, maintain that behaving morally would at least end the violence people suffer from these rioters.

>That is with absolute certainty not the solution. At all. People are already doing that.
Destroying innocent people's property is immoral.

>If you protest criminal actions by law enforcement in any capacity, or if you report on such protests, or even if you happen to be a bystander in the neighborhood, you must fear that cops will come after you and maybe even put you in the hospital as a result of being perceived as against them
Resisting them when they do that would be a moral act. You can even shoot them if it comes to it. You could kill them. Killing somebody is not inherently immoral.

Fear is not an excuse to behave immorally. It just means you are a coward.
Now to be fair it is not immoral to be a coward. While it is absolutely a character flaw, immorality comes from actions.
Attacking innocent people, for example.

>To be less glib, it must be pointed out that the vast majority of anti-police-brutality protests have been nonviolent and that the rare instances of rioting have in most if not all cases been caused by intentional police violence against peaceful protests.
I have not seen evidence so far to support this claim. I have heard it before, but I've never seen it demonstrated or proven.

As to the majority, enough has happened.
The damage done is well into the millions at this point. There are countless people dead. There are many more injured. It seems undeniable reality that this is far worse than anything the police have done at this point, even if a tenth or whatever is somehow an acceptable amount.

>At some point when people are tired of being abused, they might, even though it's indeed morally wrong, throw some abuse back. That's understandable.
If they took up arms and start shooting at police I would completely understand. I would even go as far as to say personally I supported. Open rebellion is fine by me. I am perfectly happy to see police pricings burned down, to see government offices looted, to see dead officers on the street at the end of the day. If it is justified it is moral.

Attacking innocent people is not. That is never acceptable.
They are not the ones who caused any abuse. If you want to retaliate to those who abused you, grab a rifle and start shooting at police, instead of attacking people who never done you any wrong.

The only reason innocent people are being targeted is because they are cowards.
Trying to sugar coat it with a reaction as a consequence of abuse doesn't work when the people your targeting had never caused you any harm

 No.8878

>>8863
>I will, however, maintain that behaving morally would at least end the violence people suffer from these rioters.

This makes no sense to me. As long as American law enforcement as a matter of policy finds that morality is completely irrelevant in how they behave, regular people will be facing a situation in which their own actions, whether immoral or moral, matters little. As long as those who harm innocents, whether it's a rioter taking advantage of a left-wing protest looting a video game system from a Walmart or a right-wing extremist murdering a transgender woman who happened to be in the wrong alleyway at the wrong time, understand that the police will not effectively come after them, things will be quite screwed up. Things will be even more screwed up given that the police comes down like a pile of bricks, in contrast, to anyone perceived as a possible threat or even an inconvenience, putting elderly passersby who witness the wrong cop meeting the wrong protester in the hospital.

If the source of the pollution upon the body politic's ethical atmosphere was taken care of, that would be something. I think. I don't know how likely that is. To be frank, the American political right seems to view police in religious terms and charge them with enforcing social conventions so that those who aren't right-wing "know their place". That needs to change to say the least.

 No.8880

>>8863
>I have not seen evidence so far to support this claim. I have heard it before, but I've never seen it demonstrated or proven.
It depends how you count them.  If there are 9 groups peacefully protesting in a city during the day, and 1 group that violently riots at night, do you count that as 10 separate protests (10% of which were violent) or as a single protest?

 No.8881

File: 1618963806754.jpg (66.45 KB, 524x640, 131:160, madoka.kaname.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8878
>This makes no sense to me. As long as American law enforcement as a matter of policy finds that morality is completely irrelevant in how they behave,
I think it makes sense in the context of the rest of the post, in particular the parts about openly rebelling against the unjust police, burning down their precinct buildings, and using lethal force to stop police brutality.  I suspect that you disagree with that approach (and as a practical matter I'm not really on board either, although I agree in principle).

 No.8882

>>8863
It seems like our views about violence may hinge on a matter of definitions.

If an initially peaceful protest against police brutality as well as other issues, such as economic inequality, takes place and then the local law enforcement decide to turn it into a riot, the cops assaulting innocents in the area until some of them fight back and a justification is provided for widespread brawling... then, as happens many times, criminals use this as an opportunity for arson, rape, theft, and other horrific acts, up to and including murder... I wouldn't view what those criminals did as "left-wing violence". The initial peaceful protest might have been "left-wing" given that in American politics today opposition to racial prejudice (and to economic inequality, to homophobia, to transphobia, to police brutality, et cetera) makes you "left-wing" (something that I find unfortunate as a former conservative, myself, because I miss the days of Dole/McCain/Romney/etc where you could be of the right and oppose prejudice).

I don't see, though, a situation in which a sociopath who seeks to assault a victim for his own gratification finds an opportunity to do so... or a career thief who seeks to pick up a set of televisions finds an opportunity to do so... or... well, it goes on, like... how is this "left-wing violence"? There isn't an ideological motivation in the heads or hearts of those who do those horrid actions. Naturally, they're still monsters. Yet I can't say that some kind of group moral blame exists to connect their actions to that of some random person somewhere hundreds of miles away at a different protest, say, just because of the blanket term "left-wing".

At the same time, when it comes to recent events in the U.S. such as, say, synagogues facing death threats and transgender individuals facing assault to the point of murder on the streets at night... I personally consider these to be "right-wing violence" in definitional terms because they're done by perpetrators as a result of white Christian nationalism, as a viewpoint, which inevitably leads to violence. Admittedly, this might be a stretch since the perpetrators likely have multiple motives and complicated backstories (for instance, severe mental illness has been mentioned in several mass shooting incidents where the killer cited other reasons for their actions). I still think that my belief is reasonable, though.

I've found from prior conversations with people on the right that they tend to shift definitions (not that they're lying or anything, just saying that our worldviews differ) here. So, to somebody on the political right, a Christian extremist working against LGBT people for the sake of "family values" isn't necessarily seen as "right-wing violence", say. They likely did their actions based on a narrow religious mania connected to their own mental illness (and/or other factors) that isn't political per se, or so a member of the right would argue. While a street criminal who loots a grocery store at gunpoint during a riot is seen as clearly a "left-winger" and the action "left-wing violence", even when to me there isn't ideology involved.

 No.8883

>>8880
Single protest, but I was talking about the police agitation anyway.

>>8878
>As long as American law enforcement as a matter of policy finds that morality is completely irrelevant in how they behave, regular people will be facing a situation in which their own actions, whether immoral or moral, matters little.
I disagree. Morality always matters.

If you attack innocent people, you are immoral, and I do not care about you, your demands, what you want, or any of that.
you are a terrorist and should be dealt with harshly.

I think that the Koreans did this best, by taking up arms themselves, and going to the rooftops.
That strikes me as the best response to these riots.

Nothing you have said in the rest of this paragraph seems really related to that aspect anyway. So I am not exactly sure what your point is, or what you are arguing. Yes, things will be screwed up as long as people behave poorly and are not dealt with. I agree.
That is why I think somebody should deal with that.

Whether it is the police or BLM rioters, immoral people should be dealt with. If they attack innocent people they should be dealt with harshly.

>To be frank, the American political right seems to view police in religious terms and charge them with enforcing social conventions so that those who aren't right-wing "know their place". That needs to change to say the least.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am right wing and I have certainly never seen this.

Unless you are trying to say that is is the belief of the right wing that police exist to enforce the rule of law, facilitate Justice, and protect rights, in which case yes. That is what police should be doing. I agree they aren't doing it right now, but at is the idea behind the institution

 No.8884

>>8882
+1, this is a good post.

 No.8886

>>8882
This is a long post, and I think it best if I respond once I get home and have a keyboard in front of me, as I find myself largely more getting annoyed, yelling into the microphone, rather than formulating the specific breakdowns for exactly why this is so irritating to me.

My feelings on this matter at least for the short term is that you are exhibiting the primary signs of a cultist, a tribalistic idealogue whom is perfectly happy to condemn his enemies as moral monsters, while insisting that any wrongdoing of his own party is either misguided or the result of people who are not actually within his group.

Suffice to say, I think anybody with that mindset cancel the single thing. That kind of worldview is explicitly exclusionary, not inclusionary. It is not something that can apply to everyone. And this is why the Soviet Union had gulags, where they marched millions to their deaths.

 No.8889

File: 1618966259569.png (637.8 KB, 640x640, 1:1, burger-1603410144351.png) ImgOps Google

>>8886
Hmm, you seem to have interpreted Bright Butterfly's post >>8882 much differently than I did.

>My feelings on this matter at least for the short term is that you are exhibiting the primary signs of a cultist, a tribalistic idealogue whom is perfectly happy to condemn his enemies as moral monsters, while insisting that any wrongdoing of his own party is either misguided or the result of people who are not actually within his group.
I took his post to say that each side tends to find some way to disassociate with misbehavior of people associated (rightly or wrongly) with their side.  Of course, the notion of two separate sides is an abstraction that might be breaking down.  Some on the left refuse to condemn the violent rioters.  But Bright Butterfly clearly condemned the looting and other criminal acts committed concomitantly with the BLM protests.  So what exactly is the "left" side?  I think it might be best to strip away those abstractions and speak more concretely.

 No.8892

>>8889

It is possible I misinterpreted it, as phone posting is not always conductive to dialogue.
But if it is as you say,   I do not understand why the crimes committed by somebody who is right wing can be said to be representative of that whole, while crimes on the left are evidently dismissed as just unrelated criminals.

 No.8894

Not that it matters that much, but in terms of personal beliefs I'd identify as a centrist and say that I fundamentally disagree at a base ethical level with both modern American conservatism and modern American progressivism. To be clear what my biases are. In terms of violence, I would say that I've never come across any instance of a self-described centrist committing political murder in my entire life, but that I suppose it would be theoretically possible. When it comes to left-wing violence, I believe that the most prominent example that come to mind is the New Black Panther Party member shooting here in my native Texas (which was horrifying to follow locally, not that I was there or anything). When it comes to right-wing violence, I think of the U.S. Capitol building insurrection first, I think. When it comes to libertarian (social progressive and fiscally restrained) violence, I fail to really understand the history to be honest and should research the topic more, but the singular example I can think of is maybe the Oklahoma City bombing (however, labeling McVeigh and his associations as 'libertarian' is... complicated).

>>8886
To be honest, I genuinely fail to understand why my point of, to put it succulently, "People of a certain political group will tend to use definitions in a way that's unlike others outside of their group, thus in language terms removing violent actors from being associated with them" is something that you not only virulently object to but find that my saying so makes you see me as horrible monster. I don't get it. I just don't.

>>8889
Yes, thanks for adding to the point.

 No.8896

>>8892
>can be said to be representative of that whole
I don't think he said that?

> I do not understand why the crimes committed by somebody who is right wing can be said to be representative of that whole, while crimes on the left are evidently dismissed as just unrelated criminals.
The post has a lot of nuance (unlike, say, Manley's posts, which were often straight-up partisan talking points) and needs to be read carefully.  It's not claiming that one side is objectively correct.  It's presented from a left-leaning viewpoint while acknowledging that that viewpoint is potentially politically biased.  Read it as a sense of how a left-leaning person reads the situation, not a proclamation of what the objective truth is.  Realize that both perspectives have some merit to them and also some flaws.

 No.8900

>"It seems to be the left who get predominately more freedom to behave indiscriminately, as already pointed to. They can destroy as they please unthreatened, whereas far more peaceful action by the right immediately is hounded by everyone possible."

I want to pick up on this point again from Mouse, because in historical terms it appears fundamentally unsound.

In depth, looking at 2000 to 2020, there appears to have been six major social movements with mass protests involved:
>Opposition efforts to the 'war on terror' and specifically the invasion of Iraq in terms of supporting de-militarization and calming the bloodlust after 9/11 (verdict: a complete failure as we've been in endless war for years after years, it was broadly left-wing in terms of being anti-George-W.-Bush but not necessarily so, it was essentially peaceful)
>LGBT efforts to allow the LGBT in the military, to legalize same-sex marriage, and to otherwise change discriminatory laws (verdict: a general success with mixed results, it was broadly left-wing with some exceptions, it was partly peaceful but involved a lot of violence against the LGBT from fringe militants)
>The Tea Party movement (verdict: a complete failure as the GOP went in the exact antithetical direction, with spending, debt, deficits, regulations, and the like ballooning out of control under Trump, it was broadly right-wing with some exceptions, it was essentially peaceful)
>The Occupy Wall Street movement (verdict: a complete failure as the U.S. economic system has worsened even more as far as inequality, it was broadly left-wing with some exceptions, it was plagued with violence that occurred from the most part with police attacking peaceful protesters)
>The women's march movement and other anti-Trump social protests (verdict: a general success with mixed results, it was broadly left-wing with some exceptions, it was essentially peaceful)
>The Black Lives Matter movement (verdict: incomplete/ongoing, it has been broadly left-wing with some exceptions, it has been plagued with violence in terms of both cops attacking peaceful protesters and also rioters taking advantage of chaos to do dangerous crimes)

My interpretation of the past two decades is that first, broadly, social protests don't really work (at least, I guess, not well) and that second, broadly, nobody of any political stripe is necessarily violent **but** the police are not really to be trusted.

 No.8902

>>8781
>>8801
>manslaughter v. murder
Had to look that up.  I had mistaken ideas about those words.

>What the SJWs do is taint these grievances with racial tensions and drive people to lawlessly riot rather than peacefully protest.

I see, there may be issues with policing, but they are not racial or as serious as murder or manslaughter (of a bad kind) being committed more by cops than anyone else.

>just individual SJWs acting spouting nonsense on Twitter and CNN, etc.
Hmm...nonsense is typical unconvincing.  Well, maybe most nonsense can find some small audience.  Perhaps the protestors are such a small audience.

 No.8903

>>8902
>Hmm...nonsense is typical unconvincing.
It's not designed to convince.  It's designed to confirm the viewer's pre-existing biases.  CNN panders to their left-leaning audience just like Fox News panders to their right-leaning audience.
 
See also:
https://SlateStarCodex.com/2020/02/12/confirmation-bias-as-misfire-of-normal-bayesian-reasoning/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/confirmation-bias

 No.8904

Have got to say that a lot of this whole line of argument is rather breathtaking because it appears completely removed from reality. No, racism exists at a systematic level in the U.S. today. It's not just historical. It's rather hard for me to accept the claims made here that racism is all gone, especially when the recent coronavirus pandemic has disproportionately lead to massive suffering among black and Hispanic Americans due to them doing everything from working more dangerous jobs to lacking more reasonable health care coverage compared to others.

A color-blind oasis of tolerance and understanding with widespread niceness the U.S. is not. Accepting this fact doesn't make me 'blinded' by the 'evil' 'radical' 'Marxist' 'SJW' 'agitators' or whatever. It makes me rational.

>>8903
A lot of it isn't really 'pandering' or anything morally questionable, it's simply a failure of perspective because people with really different background who constantly get reinforcement of certain things genuinely can't understand other ideas.

In terms of law enforcement, a large chunk of Americans genuinely have avoided seeing anything involving cops behaving badly and have gotten fed a steady stream of them as saints. They can't psychologically understand that cops are flawed human being too and that many of them have done (and are doing) crimes. When they get told by others about police misconduct, it simply doesn't mentally register. Videos of outright atrocities (such as George Floyd's murder) might spur the conscience, though. Or might not.

 No.8905

File: 1618979232931.jpg (175.6 KB, 601x850, 601:850, 94k6ndus0h6o.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8904
>It's rather hard for me to accept the claims made here that racism is all gone
Looking back at my post >>8793, I guess it was ambiguous, but I had intended only that racism wasn't a component of police killings (as the data shows).  I admit that racism still infects non-deadly use-of-force by the police (as the data also shows).

>A lot of it isn't really 'pandering' or anything morally questionable, it's simply a failure of perspective because people with really different background who constantly get reinforcement of certain things genuinely can't understand other ideas.
I'm not sure what goes on at the individual level, but the corporation as whole certainly does optimize for what drives its revenues, and confirming their audience's biases does that much better than challenging them.

 No.8906

>>8781
My take? Rule of law matters. That means you don't get to riot when you don't get your way (or when you do get your way, because these days i guess we can't rule that out). It also means that, as a police officer, you can't just go taking lives when someone looks at you funny. Your duty is to enforce the law, and people getting their day at court with a lawyer is part of the law. When a police officer takes a life, they're spitting on the law that we pay them to uphold, as well as killing someone. It's abhorrent. In some circumstances it's inevitable, i understand that, but we've seen lots of cases come to light recently where deaths were very clearly avoidable. There's no reason to shoot an unarmed person. Taze them, beat them up, sick your dogs on them, if they're bigger than your or something, i get that you do what you have to do, but stop taking lives.

This all gets fixed when rule of law matters again. Chauvin genuinely getting the book thrown at him is a fantastic first step. I only hope police don't stop doing their jobs because we don't tolerate their taking of lives willy nilly anymore. I don't think they're, as a whole, that immature and petty, but it still worries me. The rioters and murderous cops both deserve their day in court, shortly followed by a long sentence. We have laws against those actions, you're not fucking special. I'm pretty fucking done with people thinking they're special, that they're above the law or common decency, to be perfectly frank. The law is a joke in America, right now. A rapists can rape passed out strangers and get a slap in the face, but we put people in jail for the rest of their lives because they got scammed into a debtor's  prison. It's absurd.

The conservatives are to blame because they let money rule all. The liberals are to blame because they worship counter-culture, to the point where simply making noise and being contrarian are considered virtuous, even when you're actively being being a bad person. I think we need to put our foot down for human decency. Things have gotten entirely out of control.

 No.8907

File: 1618980768045.jpg (686.53 KB, 1000x696, 125:87, breakfast-pizza.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8906
> There's no reason to shoot an unarmed person.
Shooting an unarmed person is often unnecessary, but sometimes it is necessary.

 No.8908

>>8905
Are you willing to admit that racism still fundamentally exists in American society, or are you implying that that police actions in which people are harmed but not killed is some kind of extreme outlier... a blot in what's generally the idealistic and tolerant oasis of colorblindness that is America?

I'd also like to point out that the academic analysis that racism wasn't a component of police killings but is in terms of all/most other actions of police caused harm to others is, while itself reasonable, something that's been seriously called into question... I don't think that there's a clear academic consensus on this topic yet.

 No.8909

>>8907
You have at least one buddy, a dog, an electricity gun, combat training, and a baton. In what situation is that not enough to deal with some unarmed schmuck?

 No.8910

>>8906
>"I only hope police don't stop doing their jobs because we don't tolerate their taking of lives willy nilly anymore. I don't think they're, as a whole, that immature and petty, but it still worries me."

I've heard of that expressed as the "Ferguson effect", and I think that, actually, objective scientific research into the matter has found no clear-cut evidence that such a thing really happens. Many cities with police accountability efforts find that crime stays the same or even decreases. Many localities that take the opposite approach and believe that a better society comes from unleashing peoples' inner Dirty Harry find that failing completely to work.

 No.8911

>>8903
So beliefs about systemic racism exist prior to SJW's, SJW's amplify but do not generate the notions.  SJW's operate as individuals and have no master plan, they are rebels without causes.

 No.8912

>>8908
>Are you willing to admit that racism still fundamentally exists in American society
Not sure what you mean by "fundamentally", but given that police act racistly in non-deadly use-of-force, I'd be quite surprised if all other sectors were free of racism.

>>8909
>You have at least one buddy, a dog, an electricity gun, combat training, and a baton. In what situation is that not enough to deal with some unarmed schmuck?
You see an unarmed man 100 yards away.  A ravine separates you from him.  The man has tied up a child and is about to rape her.  The tazer won't travel 100 yards, and neither you nor the dog can jump the ravine.  But a well-placed 5.56mm round would easily stop the would-be rapist.

There are less far-fetched scenarios too.

 No.8913

File: 1618983386984.png (196.03 KB, 4151x3000, 4151:3000, 1618873551114.png) ImgOps Google

>>8911
The next step of their master plan is to crash this country, with no survivors!

Anyway, more seriously, I kinda regret flippantly using the term "SJW" in that post now.  The situation is pretty complex, but the talking heads on the liberal-leaning TV stations definitely made the situation worse by playing up the racism angle and failing to condemn the violent rioters.

 No.8914

>>8912

A standard police Pistol won't help you at all in that situation, either. Assuming we've armed every cop with 5.56mm rounds, and they're all trained well enough to use them properly, which is a hell of an assumption, you'd still have to line up the shot in the, what, few seconds or so before this guy rapes this kid? You'd be at high risk of shooting the child, as well, and I'm not confident at all you could line up a shot in that time, in which case, you might as well just get over their as fast as you can and beat his ass.

 No.8915

File: 1618984240410.png (9.97 KB, 240x240, 1:1, 1488261581479.png) ImgOps Google

>>8914
> what, few seconds or so before this guy rapes this kid?
I was thinking more like 15--30 seconds or so.

>You'd be at high risk of shooting the child,
Depends on the specific relative positions, but say for the sake of argument that you have a clear line-of-sight.

>you might as well just get over their as fast as you can and beat his ass.
There's the ravine between you and him.  Let's say it would take at least 10 minutes to take an alternate route to him.

>Assuming we've armed every cop with 5.56mm rounds,
I was just assuming that there is at least one cop who can reliably shoot an AR-15 at a distance of 100 yards.  

 No.8916

I just wish that conservatives weren't pathologically incapable, in a lot of cases, of admitting that racism still exists in America.

They appear to generally have this notion that America is a wonderful dreamland created by infallible Founding Fathers such that everyone always acts in an atmosphere of perpetual niceness and tolerance... expect, of course, for those evil SJWs who invent racism as a bogeyman in order to benefit themselves and scare minorities who would otherwise be perfectly happy with everything forever, such is our natural harmony.

Or, alternately, conservatives will say that racism does exist but that it's only towards white people and that being white in 2021 is now as bad as being black was in 1821, essentially.

I... I don't really know how to bridge this worldview gap.

Admittedly, progressives in many instances are rather pathologically incapable of admitting a lot of situations exist as well, like they seem allergic to the idea of being told by somebody that as a gun owner they defended themselves against bodily harm with their weapon.

Again, I don't know how the blinders come off.

>>8912
Isn't it then rational, well, for SJWs to be SJWs? If you rationally expect the police to refuse to help you if you're victimized and know that they might make you into a victim, since the cops in your area are that bad, isn't resentment to the point of maybe hatred understandable? Unhelpful, perhaps, but reasonable?

 No.8917

>>8914
>A standard police Pistol won't help you at all in that situation, either.
Personally, I'm not well-trained enough to hit a target at 100 yards with my handgun.  But there are marksmen who can do it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzyhDWHLDvI&t=100

 No.8918

>>8916
> If you rationally expect the police to refuse to help you if you're victimized and know that they might make you into a victim, since the cops in your area are that bad, isn't resentment to the point of maybe hatred understandable?
Yeah, but as >>8863 said, that hatred should be directed at the cops, not at looting or burning down innocent businesses.  I dunno why so many people find it hard to simultaneously support the peaceful protesters while opposing the lawless rioters who harm innocent third parties.

 No.8919

File: 1618987413831.png (260.41 KB, 655x341, 655:341, ruby.png) ImgOps Google

>>8913
I see.  I agree things can be exaggerated, especially in ways that increase views on social media -- careful combinations of what someone already thinks, plus something that makes them feel good about themselves or their group, plus a bit of theater.  My lack of popularity on these platforms means I can't say too much about the nuts and bolts, but I think that's generally the idea.

I do think, in moral frames that allow it, systemic racism is probably present in many things.  If you begin with the idea that the state is the authority, and racism is bad, a person could not believe in systemic racism in state actions.  The question of whether racism is significant in this or that -- well, I mostly know what I read, and it tends to be left, so I will have that bias.  If the authors -- say writers the The Atlantic -- are giving me inaccurate perspectives, I suppose I see the world inaccurately.  I mean, I do try to read from both sides.  Well, more recently I've been trying to get out of reading about modern politics and into older works, but anyway.

"12-member jury found Chauvin, 45, guilty of all three charges of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter."

I'm no longer on curfew.

 No.8920

>>8917
>Personally, I'm not well-trained enough to hit a target at 100 yards with my handgun.  But are marksmen who can do it:

You'd be at serious risk of shooting the child.

 No.8921

>>8920
Depends how close he is to the child.  If he is 1--2 m away, a well-trained marksman would have no problem.  If he is 7 m away, even I could take the shot without serious risk to the child.

 No.8922

>>8825
>By actively causing more damage than the police ever did
The police and criminal justice system - on the whole - have caused orders of magnitude more damage than blm inspired riots ever have.
Source: the war on drugs

A riot isn't just a response to the killing of one person, it's decades of this kind of thing being done to a community.

>>8825
>jumping on situations where wrongful action may well not even be present before the evidence
Has there ever been a riot where it was like "shit, that unarmed or compliant guy really did deserve to be treated with lethal force by the police"? We might also have different definitions of wrongful action. Even when police had a reason to use lethal force it's often that the police behaved in needlessly reckless ways to get to that point. An example being the man who woke up to a home invasion and started lawfully defending himself and the police who had no reason being fired back. I don't think it's actually that hard to figure out very quickly when the police fucked up with a near perfect accuracy. But I'm open to examples to the contrary.

>>8825
>tying it to arbitrary characteristics that do not seem to apply in the situations,
Example?

>>8825
>plethora of misinformation and racialized thinking
Example?

>>8825
>Unrest targeting innocent people based on bad information without even waiting to see what happens let alone for the facts to come out as well as demanding absurd changes that help no one is definitely,  100% bad.
Okay, but the way you word things seems to want to pin this on the entirety of the movement. As though most protests and protesters are violent. They aren't:

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

The idea that the unrest caused by blm is predominately violent is misinformation. You haven't actually said that's your argument btw, I'm just pointing it out because it appears based on what you focus on that you have adopted the idea that blm is primarily about property damage and attacking strangers. Correct me if I have you wrong here. And if my source is wrong, I'd appreciate seeing a better source of evidence, because it is my impression that the focus on the few instances which are truly bad are used to a disproportionate effect to de-legitimatize the movement on the whole (what I believe to be happening in your posts, basically). There's intent out there to spread the idea of violent riots in order to reduce the popularity of the moment and thus reduce the likelihood that the larger citizenry will support police reforms. If you truly are pro reform to any degree, you should be pro blm.

 No.8923

>>8916
Nobody doubts racism exists still in America.
That's obvious.

The question isn't "does racism exist", it's "is there still institutional racism".
My stance is "no", at least not the way that the left frames it.
But I admit, most the issues of extreme racial inequality seem to be Democrat-controlled cities, so, it may well be that Democrats are still just as racist as they used to be, and I don't know because I don't live there.

 No.8924

>>8922
>Has there ever been a riot where it was like "shit, that unarmed or compliant guy really did deserve to be treated with lethal force by the police"?
In the case of George Floyd, all evidence I have seen says he was not murdered, and suffered a drug overdose that he clearly was suffering prior to being put into a hold trained by the department, and of which couldn't result in suffocation anyway.
So, yeah.
George Floyd.

>Example
Race.
George Floyd wasn't put in a hold because he was black.
The bodycamera footage makes that pretty abundantly clear.

>Example?
George Floyd.
See above, for the most part.

>Okay, but the way you word things seems to want to pin this on the entirety of the movement. As though most protests and protesters are violent. They aren't:
It's their protest.

And 1 in 10 is a horrifically huge number, in any case.
I don't see why anyone would consider 1 in 10 to be acceptable.
Especially when it's not simply 'violence' to begin with. If it's just violence to the cops, that's one thing. But this is violence to people who did nothing to them.

If you want to kill police, I do not care.
Go out there, string them up, and I'd still be sitting here saying nothing. Even if it's for a stupid reason I don't think is valid.
I don't care. I don't like police.
But when you attack people who did nothing to you, I care a hell of a lot more. Innocent people who aren't even being allowed to defend themselves.
That's unacceptable.

>I'm just pointing it out because it appears based on what you focus on that you have adopted the idea that blm is primarily about property damage and attacking strangers.
Nope. That's a pretty obvious strawman.
I'm not going to engage with it further, as engaging with dishonesty never ends well.

> If you truly are pro reform to any degree, you should be pro blm.
Even if there were no violence to innocent people, I would not be pro BLM as I do not believe BLM's reasons are legitimate, being police racism, or their solutions are reasonable, being racialized policing.

I am pro reform of pretty much the entire legal system.
I do not trust people who blame racism for their problems, when it seems just as commonly to affect white people.
The only difference is, when a white kid is killed, nobody cares. Nobody remembers their name. Nobody protests. Nothing happens.

 No.8925

>>8924
>George Floyd
Well, the law, a court, and jury unanimously disagree with you on that one. Also that the hold was trained by the department makes it worse, not better. Makes it even more reason to riot, not less. There is no need for such a hold in that situation, nor really any one.

>Race
Counter example:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9133.12269

"Research Summary
We analyzed 990 police fatal shootings using data compiled by The Washington Post in 2015. After first providing a basic descriptive analysis of these shootings, we then examined the data for evidence of implicit bias by using multivariate regression models that predict two indicators of threat perception failure: (1) whether the civilian was not attacking the officer(s) or other civilians just before being fatally shot and (2) whether the civilian was unarmed when fatally shot. The results indicated civilians from “other” minority groups were significantly more likely than Whites to have not been attacking the officer(s) or other civilians and that Black civilians were more than twice as likely as White civilians to have been unarmed."

>I don't see why anyone would consider 1 in 10 to be acceptable.
You treat blm like an organization which has membership and leadership and accountability. It's just humans who decide to exit their house on that day and try to protest corruption and a broken system. If we were to use your logic, we must condemn every single person who questions the legitimatcy of the election just because of the one horrifying event at the capital. I personally think it's okay to treat the actions of those few people as representing only the individuals instead of making it out that the ~95% of peaceful people in the movement are guilty of the crimes of the 5%. Let me remind you I've never said riots are good and rioters targeting innocents is excusable. My only point is focusing on this when talking about the movement is a tactic used to de-legitimatize the call for reform. Which to be exceedingly clear doesn't mean we should completely ignore it either. Basically, people say "blm is violent" and it's unfair at best or deliberating dishonest at worst.

If all you want is to condemn the 5%, then I'm on board. But do that instead of trying to discredit the whole.

>That's a pretty obvious strawman.
Yikes, it's not a strawman if I ask you whether I got your argument correct and pointing out the way your rhetoric is leading people away from sane police reform. Strawman has a very specific meaning which the way I framed my entire post very clearly was designed to be sure I didn't cross into. No idea why you decided throwing out "dishonesty" is the way to go here, sounds like you have a stick up your ass for reasons I can't imagine.

If you are gonna double down on that point, don't bother responding. I don't have time to argue about petty internet behavior.

 No.8926

>>8882
>I wouldn't view what those criminals did as "left-wing violence".
I would agree, because you defined the hypothetical.

However, in the case of BLM and Antifa's actions, I do not believe there is a clean separation that you see between those using this situation as an opportunity and those also engaging in the protest.
I believe they are one in the same.

>The initial peaceful protest might have been "left-wing" given that in American politics today opposition to racial prejudice (and to economic inequality, to homophobia, to transphobia, to police brutality, et cetera) makes you "left-wing" (something that I find unfortunate as a former conservative, myself, because I miss the days of Dole/McCain/Romney/etc where you could be of the right and oppose prejudice
I disagree with the framing of the sides.

I oppose racism, prejudice, and police brutality, it's just that a different set of standards comes up as consequence.
I do not believe any form of racism, ever, is acceptable. This includes "positive racism" where black people get preferential treatment in hiring, scholarship selection, or government grants.
I do not believe prejudice should be acceptable in law, including prejudice over people's beliefs. If someone has a religious reason for not wishing to craft a cake that he disagrees with, it is not the state's role to force that man.
I am opposed to police brutality. I am opposed to any violation of rights, including those committed by regular citizens, as I believe the state exists to protect rights. I also think we should get the full facts of a situation before we jump to conclusions, and at least in the case of George Floyd, I'm not convinced by the evidence to claim it was murder, or even police brutality, having watched the full bodycamera footage and followed along the trial to know that it was clearly a trained technique.

What you point to as the separation between 'left' and 'right', I would say is mistaken.

>There isn't an ideological motivation in the heads or hearts of those who do those horrid actions
Having talked to many of these people, and argued it quite a few times in the past, I'd very much disagree.
I've heard a lot of people give me explicitly ideological reasons why it is acceptable for damages to be done to businesses.
I've heard people explicitly using the violence to call for their ideological goals, both as threat and while it's happening.

> Yet I can't say that some kind of group moral blame exists to connect their actions to that of some random person somewhere hundreds of miles away at a different protest, say, just because of the blanket term "left-wing".
I'd say the reason I blame them is the refusal to condemn.
Certainly, the vast majority I have spoken to are perfectly fine with the violence, either saying it's understandable, and therefor not condemnable, or that is necessary for their ends. Ala the ends justify the means.

When someone shoots up a synagogue, it seems near universally condemned by everyone even tangentially related on the right, even if their ideological beliefs are radically different and offer no connection. They still find it necessary. They actively kick out members often enough who call for, advocate for, or otherwise do, things they find abhorrent.
I've not seen this occur commonly on the left. For example, a senator can call for outright harassment in public of people she politically disagrees, and be defended, not even simply not condemned.

>I personally consider these to be "right-wing violence" in definitional terms because they're done by perpetrators as a result of white Christian nationalism, as a viewpoint, which inevitably leads to violence.
I'm not so convinced it must always result in violence. Mostly because I've talked to some of these types before. More the general "white nationalist", but that's because I've not really ever seen Christian tacked between the two until now.
In any case, there are some I've spoken to who, while they want everyone to stay in their places, otherwise do not want violence of any kind, and find it immoral.

But I suppose that's an entirely different subject, anyway.

>I've found from prior conversations with people on the right that they tend to shift definitions (not that they're lying or anything, just saying that our worldviews differ) here.
I find by large the direct opposite.
That the right tend to use specific, dictionary definitions, whereas the left creates their own to suit them.
The most prominent example is "racism".
Prejudice + power, is what the left oft quotes to me.
The definition of racism I know, and find in common use everywhere it seems, is simply prejudice based on race. No power necessary.

>They likely did their actions based on a narrow religious mania connected to their own mental illness (and/or other factors) that isn't political per se, or so a member of the right would argue.
Some might. I'd say most wouldn't, that I've spoken to.
This, again, comes down to the condemnation thing.
It seems by large the majority of the right is perfectly fine with condemning terrible people who use ideological reasons to commit barbaric acts.
While they might personally disagree with that specific ideology, I find they still are okay with calling it 'right wing violence', and condemning it.
This has not been my experience, at least as far as the riots have been concerned, from the left.

> While a street criminal who loots a grocery store at gunpoint during a riot is seen as clearly a "left-winger" and the action "left-wing violence", even when to me there isn't ideology involved.
"Gunpoint" seems to be a strange addition, but, while your hypothetical could certainly not have ideology involved, I do not believe that is typically true of the riots, more generally.
And more importantly, they do not police their own. They do not kick that looter out. They do not seem to condemn that looter for what they have done.

That, to me, is the big difference.

 No.8927

>>8922
This is completely correct.

>>8925
This is as well.

 No.8928

>>8925
Law is not inherently just, inherently moral, or inherently truthful.

>Also that the hold was trained by the department makes it worse, not better.
Point is, if it's taught as a non-lethal restraint, it's going to be used as such, cannot be 'murder', and in the case of negligence, is on the city not the individual who acted within the best of his ability according to his training.

>There is no need for such a hold in that situation, nor really any one.
I don't think you've watched the full bodycam footage.

>Counter example:
I am not paying to read your study.

Nonetheless; Correlation does not equate to causation.
If we assume that statistics raised are all the result of race, then you'd have no argument to the white nationalists claiming black people are predisposed to crime, due to the racial crime rate.

Now, I'd love to get in to the specifics of the study you've pointed to, since I very much doubt it considered much in the way of circumstance of situation, but again, paywall.
Although now that I look, you only cited the paragraph from the summary, so... Well, I hate to say it, but I don't think you've read it either.

>You treat blm like an organization which has membership and leadership and accountability.
Would you not do the same with White Nationalists, Christians, or even something as nebulous as "Republican"?

> If we were to use your logic, we must condemn every single person who questions the legitimatcy of the election just because of the one horrifying event at the capital.
I can certainly say we should condemn the rioting that took place in the capital, and those responsible, absolutely.
And that seems to have been the response from the bulk of republicans.

This is not something I see occur on the left.

>I personally think it's okay to treat the actions of those few people as representing only the individuals instead of making it out that the ~95% of peaceful people in the movement are guilty of the crimes of the 5%.
When they do not police their own, and seem to actively be encouraging it, let alone not condemning it, I think it's fair to blame it on the rest of them.

When the 95% say "Violence is unacceptable", I'll care more.

>. My only point is focusing on this when talking about the movement is a tactic used to de-legitimatize the call for reform.
I think there are better things to point to, but, I do believe there is a good argument that we should not trust people who cannot police their own or condemn violence against innocents dictate our societal reform when it comes to law and order.

>Yikes, it's not a strawman if I ask you whether I got your argument correct and pointing out the way your rhetoric is leading people away from sane police reform
A side effect of presuming someone's argument is you're going to make them annoyed with you.

If i said "I'm just pointing it out, because it appears based on what you focus on that you think pedophilia is acceptable", that would be blatantly dishonest of me, a clear strawman, and an attempt to poison the well.

If that makes me have a "stick up my ass", so be it.
I'm in favor of NOT making up shitty presumptions about people who I disagree with, in order to make them look bad.
Sue me.

>If you are gonna double down on that point, don't bother responding. I don't have time to argue about petty internet behavior.
You're the one who just told me I have a quote "stick up [my] ass".
>>8925
>" sounds like you have a stick up your ass for reasons I can't imagine. "
If you "don't have time" for "petty internet behavior" maybe insulting people like a jackass is the wrong way to conduct yourself.

It's especially stupid of you to think insulting people, and then saying "don't bother responding" is a reasonable standard of dialogue.
If you're throwing around the insults, you only have yourself to blame when people call out your assholish behavior.
If you think that is acceptable, I feel sorry for your mother.

 No.8929

>>8927
Out of curiosity, do you think it is also "completely correct" to call people names after they get annoyed that you made up a position to tack to them?

Because, personally, I would consider that to be disgusting behavior.
But maybe this differing moral standard is why you and I disagree so much.
I believe in basic decency.
He, clearly, doesn't.

 No.8931

>>8923
>"Nobody doubts racism exists still in America. That's obvious."
This is an objectively factually false statement. Many conservatives deny that racism exists at all to any significant extent. Many others claim that racism does exist but that it only applies to white people. Still others claim that racism is a problem but have blinders on and state that racism only comes from their perceived enemies (whether from gay people, from liberals, from transgender people, et cetera).

>"is there still institutional racism"?
Racism can be both individual and systematic. And, like the vast majority of Americans, I believe that both exist. I don't see this as really that arguable.

>"most the issues of extreme racial inequality seem to be Democrat-controlled cities, so, it may well be that Democrats are still just as racist as they used to be"
The first part of this is an objectively factually false statement as racism is a problem throughout the U.S., particularly as a result of federal government policies that apply by definition everywhere. The second part is incredibly ignorant in a way that's breathtaking. The political parties, as you should know, have swapped. Completely.

The Democrats used to be opposed to civil rights. They are now for it. They used to be opposed to racial equality. They are now for it. They used to be the 'Lost Cause of the Confederacy' Party. They are now against that.

In contrast, the Republican Party has gone from the 'Party of Lincoln' to the pro-Confederate Party that openly argues that the south were "the good guys in the war" against "northern aggression hurting states rights". Republicans openly call Lincoln an evil tyrant. They also systematically oppose civil rights and other causes that they used to believe in.

 No.8933

>>8931
>This is an objectively factually false statement. Many conservatives deny that racism exists at all to any significant extent. Many others claim that racism does exist but that it only applies to white people. Still others claim that racism is a problem but have blinders on and state that racism only comes from their perceived enemies (whether from gay people, from liberals, from transgender people, et cetera).
So, what you are saying is, what I had said is objectively true.
Not a single one of those you cited say racism does not exist.

If you had specified "to any significant extent", I wouldn't have said what I did.
Your statement in >>8916 was specifically
>"I just wish that conservatives weren't pathologically incapable, in a lot of cases, of admitting that racism still exists in America."
Conservatives are aware racism still exists.
They disagree with you on its scale, by large.
But, extent and significance is subjective. I would have stated that had you started from that position, instead of claiming they do not believe racism exists in America at all.

>Racism can be both individual and systematic. And, like the vast majority of Americans, I believe that both exist. I don't see this as really that arguable.
To some extent. But not enough for me to call it 'systemic', or to claim it's a 'significant extent'.

But, like I said, I do not live in Democrat-controlled cities where these seem to be predominately a problem.

>The first part of this is an objectively factually false statement as racism is a problem throughout the U.S., particularly as a result of federal government policies that apply by definition everywhere.
What current federal policy exists that is racist?

> The second part is incredibly ignorant in a way that's breathtaking. The political parties, as you should know, have swapped. Completely.
I am aware that people claim this. I haven't seen it in practice.

>The Democrats used to be opposed to civil rights. They are now for it.
I disagree.
I've certainly seen more opposition to people's rights coming from the democrats as of late than the republicans.

>They used to be opposed to racial equality. They are now for it.
Depends on what you mean by equality.
I do not believe they support equality under the law.
It seems they want equal outcome. Or well, claim to anyway. I don't live there, so I can't say for sure, but given how black populations still remain in slums despite decades of Democrat rule in these cities, it looks a lot to me like they want them to, I believe the quote was, "have those n****rs voting Democratic for 200 years".
Especially with the way cities seem to zone things, like schooling, where district lines seem to be drawn to ensure the poorest communities get no funding while the richest get no poors in their schools.

>In contrast, the Republican Party has gone from the 'Party of Lincoln' to the pro-Confederate Party that openly argues that the south were "the good guys in the war" against "northern aggression hurting states rights".
I'm going to be blunt, I think you've pulled this from your rear I'm afraid.

Having talked with many republicans, they seem predominately pro-Union.
I'd say you're buying a bit too much into propaganda, instead of actually talking to people.

>Republicans openly call Lincoln an evil tyrant.
Lincoln seems to be greatly respected, last I saw.
What's your source for that?

>They also systematically oppose civil rights and other causes that they used to believe in.
Like free speech?
The 2nd Amendment?
Right to own property?
Self defense?

What civil rights exactly do you think the right opposes?

 No.8934

>>8924
>"In the case of George Floyd, all evidence I have seen says he was not murdered, and suffered a drug overdose that he clearly was suffering prior to being put into a hold trained by the department, and of which couldn't result in suffocation anyway."

To be honest, this kind of disconnect from reality is a bit... hard to process. I feel as if I'm confronted with a German nationalist stating with certainty that the Holocaust didn't occur or with a tobacco industry lobbyist stating with certainty that smoking has no connection to lung cancer. I don't mean to be rude, but communication is going to be difficult.

To start with, does the fact that your belief directly oppose what the vast majority of all people who have looked into this think bother you at all? If no, why not? I'm wondering.

 No.8935

File: 1619024073127.jpg (126.79 KB, 1152x814, 576:407, 3779149-no-you-move-cap-sa….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8934
>To be honest, this kind of disconnect from reality is a bit... hard to process.
I feel the same.
It's as though people didn't watch the trial unfold.
I feel like they just saw the video and said "black man, white cop, knee, case closed".

> I feel as if I'm confronted with a German nationalist stating with certainty that the Holocaust didn't occur or with a tobacco industry lobbyist stating with certainty that smoking has no connection to lung cancer.
I can understand how you'd feel that way.
There's a big narrative surrounding the case, after all.
It's not surprising people feel strongly, when everything around them tells them "this is clear cut murder".
That's been the narrative a while, and the evidence hasn't been forthcoming until the trial basically. I certainly didn't see the rest of the bodycamera footage until then, and I think the full footage was only a short while before the thing started.

>To start with, does the fact that your belief directly oppose what the vast majority of all people who have looked into this think bother you at all? If no, why not? I'm wondering.
Who is the "majority" in this case?
Did you run a poll, or simply assume it?

I know that people I've spoken to who've kept up with the case agree, it was clearly not murder. That much is blatantly obvious from the facts. Some of them disagree, in regards to manslaughter, but most of them I've talked to seem to agree it wasn't the knee that killed him, it was the lack of medical treatment to a drug overdose.
Which, my stance is, that's expected when you have an angry mob surrounding. It's also why the medical team didn't treat him there. They just quickly wheeled him out. But at least that's more understandable than people calling it murder, to me.

Anyway, to the underlying principle of the question, if the majority people did disagree with me, would it bother me?
Yes.
But it wouldn't change my mind.
My issue'd be that people are wrong. Not that I'm somehow wrong, just because the mob says so.

 No.8936

>>8933
>>8935
To be honest, your moral system appears so directly opposed to mine and that of most regular people, to the point that our good is your evil and your evil is out good, that I believe that dialogue isn't ethically possible. We simply cannot coexist due to our entirely sperate moralities. I realize that this may come across as an attack, but I think it's a direct factual observation.

I suppose this is what it felt like during the middle ages when Catholics and Protestants in the same area were unable to do anything. Or Israelis and Palestinians currently. Or in a fantasy setting humans and aliens.

I appreciate your attempts to convey your opinion. Have a nice day.

 No.8938

File: 1619025792873.png (1022.11 KB, 750x1125, 2:3, 1839145.png) ImgOps Google

>>8936
I'm not so sure you actually understand my moral standard, to make such a judgement. But I understand it's not an attack, in any case.
I'd just put money on it being misinformed.

Which is, as you say with catholics and protestants, israel and palestine, and so many others, what I suspect is the main issue there as well.
Understanding is hard. Especially where major differences lie, and even more so with groups who are already opposed before understanding was ever even considered, let alone attempted.

I appreciate the chat, nonetheless. Dialogue is, if nothing else, at least useful for exploring one's own way of thinking, if not a reliable method for conveying that thinking to others.

 No.8940

>>8938
It appears fairly clear that it's not a misunderstanding but that we simply cannot coexist because our ideas if what is morally right and what is morally wrong is incompatible. Like that of, say, an alien tribe of insects facing another alien tribe of birds. I regret this but understand that different people are raised in different circumstances such that no option exists rather than unconditional opposition.

Perhaps, in the long term, some solution can occur in which individuals with issues as to who may or not be allowed to exist may be able to live in their own communities separate from the broader populace. We shall see. I would like to be idealistic. Again, I appreciate your honesty.

 No.8943

>>8940
(I'm phone posting so my comments may be a bit unclear. I hope that it doesn't appear that I'm accusing you of being evil and of not allowing my right to exist. Wording things is difficult. Have a nice day, regardless.)

 No.8944

>>8943
No worries, I've had the same troubles before.
I think I get what you mean. Still feel like neither of us actually got to the point of establishing moral standards, but the nature of tribalism is definitely accurate nonetheless.

 No.8945

File: 1619028155892.png (77.85 KB, 370x320, 37:32, 1596242702846.png) ImgOps Google

>>8922
> If you truly are pro reform to any degree, you should be pro blm.
Eh, that's kinda like saying "If you are truly pro-gun to any degree, you should be pro-NRA".  I support the demands of peaceful BLM protesters to reform police misbehavior.  But I disagree with the emphasis on racial issues.  Fix the problem of police misbehavior for everyone in a race-neutral manner, and the racial issues will most likely go away.

 No.8946

>>8928
>I am not paying to read your study.
Just paste the DOI into SciHub:
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12269

 No.8947

>>8931
>Republicans openly call Lincoln an evil tyrant.
If you mean than a small fraction (maybe 5% or so) of Republicans call Lincoln an evil tyrant, I could believe that.  If you mean that 50%+ of Republicans call Lincoln an evil tyrant, I am very skeptical.

 No.8948

>>8933
>> The second part is incredibly ignorant in a way that's breathtaking. The political parties, as you should know, have swapped. Completely.
>I am aware that people claim this. I haven't seen it in practice.
In terms the voter bases of the parties, there was definitely a swap to some degree.  But the degree to which the Democratic Party is truly motivated to actually help blacks (as opposed to feel-good measure that get votes without actually helping them) is questionable.  But nowadays this probably isn't specifically racial, but rather the general tendency of many politicians to put forward feel-good measures instead of making any actual progress.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/did-lbj-say-ill-have-those-nggers-voting-democratic-200-years/

 No.8949

>>8934
Murder is a very specific offense that requires premeditation.  I'd say that I'm 90% confident that there isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin intentionally or recklessly killed Floyd.  As for the manslaughter charge, I think it's a close call.  In hindsight, Chauvin certainly made a mistake.  Whether the mistake crosses the line into criminal negligence isn't clear to me (although I haven't looked closely at the evidence, so maybe that just's me).  Based on what I know, I'm leaning toward that conclusion that Chauvin was guilty of manslaughter but that his culpability is on the low end of the spectrum, so perhaps he deserves to be imprisoned for maybe 3--9 months or so.

I don't think cops should be able to hide behind the "just following orders" excuse.  If the city instructs the cops to confiscate all civilian-owned AR-15s, the cops should be expected to exercise a bit of common sense and realize that carrying out that order would be wrong and that they would deserve to be punished if they attempt to carry it out.

 No.8950

>>8919
>I'm no longer on curfew.
Was there any violent rioting and destruction in your city?

 No.8951

>>8928
>Law is not inherently just, inherently moral, or inherently truthful.
I can get behind that 100%, sure. Do you have reason to question the judgement in this case? I'm interested in hearing your take on the ruling. From my perspective it seems pretty sound based on the testimony.

>Point is, if it's taught as a non-lethal restraint, it's going to be used as such, cannot be 'murder' is on the city not the individual who acted within the best of his ability according to his training.
That's an pretty good argument. I agree with the idea that the city is culpable here. It probably shouldn't have been a murder charge. But whether it's murder or not, it is still evidence to my original point - that the unrest which followed was justified and this is not a case of "the person deserved lethal force". Do you think *anyone* or the city/department did absolutely anything wrong in the George Floyd case?

>I don't think you've watched the full bodycam footage.
You are not incorrect! Let me annotate this:
~2:00 - Police are already overly aggressive and adversarial. Yelling "Show me your hands". A fake 20$ bill does not warrant such aggression and this only serves to escalate. This is already pretty problematic, though nothing criminal (on the cops part). Still, this is bad police work and none of this had to happen if the officer questioning floyd didn't turn this from a friendly questioning to a threatening one. Already, 2 minutes in, I see plenty to be *mildly* upset about. Not rioting levels, but this is a crappy job done by the officer questioning george.

~3:30 - Hard to see but it appears he has been handcuffed. George yells that he isn't resisting, but from this view it's impossible to tell what's happening. Floyd has committed no crimes (it can't be said based on what the officers know that he produced this fake 20, anyone could have been in possession of one and passed it accidentally). If he had a history of passing fake 20s and the cops knew this going in, then arrest would be warranted. This is not even something worthy of police attention, but that's getting off topic.

~4:30 - George is complying with some grumbling.

~5:30 - the cop explains he put george in cuffs because he wasn't listening. The body cam footage was from a different cop and I can't hear much of the conversation they had before he was asked to step out of the vehicle. What little I heard included "yes sir". My impression is that even if this is 'lawful detainment' it's shit and shouldn't have happened.

~10:00 - they've escorted george to the car. He is not being violent towards the cops but he is scared and panicking and not complying. The officers are failing to deescalate the situation, causing him to panic more. Yelling, forceful pushing. It is true that george is not complying, but granted the state he is in that is not cause for escalation. As far as george is concerned, he is fighting for his life (I can't breathe) and compliance under those circumstances is not easy. That the police in this instance give up on de-escalation and go straight to force is bad police work and shouldn't have happened.

~11:40 - despite not actually being a threat to anyone, handcuffed behind his back and panicking from shortness of breath, the police start piling on him and using the 'hold'. Despite him clearly indicating a medical emergency, the police decide not to assist him and continue to exacerbate the problem. That's worthy of a riot right there.

~18:00 - george floyd stops moving.

Alright, I've seen it now! Given that george indicated he was having a medical emergency and the officers decided that under the circumstances they should pin his throat, I *would* call that murder. They choose to ignore a medical emergency because he was not complying (because he was having a medical emergency!). I'm not a lawyer, but that would qualify as murder given my layman understanding of second degree.

>If we assume that statistics raised are all the result of race, then you'd have no argument to the white nationalists claiming black people are predisposed to crime, due to the racial crime rate.
How can one ever prove racism then? You have created a bar so high that only the admission of racism can determine racism.

As for those statistics, kinda proves the point that the system is racist! If black people were having these kinds of higher criminal rates in all countries that would say something, but that it only happens like this in america means something. What do you believe it means if not racism?

>Although now that I look, you only cited the paragraph from the summary, so... Well, I hate to say it, but I don't think you've read it either.
You are correct again, haven't read it in detail. If I were to do so, I'd spend 99% of my life reading studies. Does that mean I sometimes get things wrong? yeah, I'll admit that. But it's better than making the bar of evidence so high that nothing can be proven.

>Would you not do the same with White Nationalists, Christians, or even something as nebulous as "Republican"?
No, I don't think I would. It's not right to say that just because one demonstration were violent that all people of that movement or the movement at large is violent. I think I could say there are elements within a movement which can be violent, but that's the nature of not being able to pick and choose who is a member.

>And that seems to have been the response from the bulk of republicans.
>This is not something I see occur on the left.
I almost never see republicans condemn it. If you are one who does, you are one of the few I personally have seen. More often than not I see people saying it was really antifa trying to disrupt a peaceful protest.

But I believe you when you say that the bulk do. So, I hope you believe me when I say the bulk of people on the left condemn rioting, looting, beating of innocents in blm protests. Instead of insisting we know the other side better, I'm happy to exchange truths if you are. What likely happens in both our cases is loudest, angriest voices win while the average level headed individual is drowned out.

>When they do not police their own, and seem to actively be encouraging it, let alone not condemning it, I think it's fair to blame it on the rest of them.
>When the 95% say "Violence is unacceptable", I'll care more.
They don't, as explained above the 5% are the loudest and if someone say they are cool with the violence then they aren't likely a part of the 95%. I'm willing to accept evidence to the contrary if you think you have a better idea from the outside than I do from the inside.

>I do believe there is a good argument that we should not trust people who cannot police their own or condemn violence against innocents dictate our societal reform when it comes to law and order.
I guess, so long as we do not trust Christians, Republicans, and White Nationalists in the same blanket way I'm at least okay with you as acting consistently, despite disagreeing! Though honestly, you've again set the bar so high that really nobody as a group can be trusted. If that's actually your argument, that's a way of being I guess and have nothing against you for it.

>If that makes me have a "stick up my ass", so be it.
So be it then! Not looking for petty internet fights.

 No.8952

>>8945
That a pretty legit counterpoint. I take it back, I'd just say if you are pro police reform one shouldn't try to actively discredit the movement while issuing appropriate and level headed criticisms of people who commit crimes such as looting and violence. Does that sound better?

>>8949
So I just watched the video myself. I'd say that if someone is yelling the equivalent of "I am dying right now, I am having a medical emergency related to my breathing" and you ignore that and opt to choose a method of restraint which the reasonable man would expect to worsen the medical emergency, would you not call that choice intent to murder?

If there were no other alternatives I could be bartered down to negligence, but this was not the sole option available to the police and again a reasonable person would have place George sitting on the ground and examined his condition. Note, floyd has resisted and failed to comply but has not been violent and that matters on how much of a risk he was and what kind of restraint was warranted. You can't expect a person having a stroke to comply, and a person suffering from oxygen deprivation would as easy not be capable of complying.

Do you see it differently? How so?

 No.8953

File: 1619047275898.jpg (40.13 KB, 500x335, 100:67, 1436017722648.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8952
>Does that sound better?
Yes.

>would you not call that choice intent to murder?
Suspects lie to the police all the time.  And typically a person who is unable to breathe is also unable to speak, so the very act of orally saying "I can't breathe" somewhat contradicts itself.  So I'd imagine that Chauvin simply disbelieved Floyd's assertion that he couldn't breathe.  If Chauvin really did actually believe that Floyd couldn't breathe, then yeah, I could see a murder charge.

 No.8954

>>8953
>Yes.
Cool, yeah I honestly don't feel like the racism angle actually helps unify people on this at all. It's just how it all unfolded and I wish we could get past the marketing and posturing and just all agree on sane reforms.

>>8953
>And typically a person who is unable to breathe is also unable to speak, so the very act of orally saying "I can't breathe" somewhat contradicts itself.
While true, a person who is suffering from a medical emergency and panic over it would not likely be able to formulate the words to communicate it properly. Did Chauvin have good reason to believe George was lying? Unless we presume guilt on account of the alleged act of counterfeiting, george has not done or said anything dishonest (that I could tell from the video). And with him handcuffed behind the back was there a substantial risk to anyone if he was lying? I do not believe there was any significant risk associated with sitting him down on his butt on the ground and then waiting for medical intervention. I'm using the reasonable man standard again here, I believe a reasonable person would have realized that given the circumstances the choice to pin him to the ground by his throat would lead to his death and a reasonable person would not have enough conviction that george was lying to put him in a position that would killing him if he was telling the truth.

>If Chauvin really did actually believe that Floyd couldn't breathe, then yeah, I could see a murder charge.
It's impossible to truly ever prove intent. The reason I feel confident (enough) about intent here though is because there were other perfectly reasonable options for handling the situation where George would not have been put into a position that he would have died. In fact, of all the ways to handle this situation the officers took the course of action which would most likely lead to his death given the circumstances!

Let's *assume* intent right now. Outside of literally taking out a gun or physically bashing his head into the pavement, how could the officers have more effectively handled the situation if they intended for him to die? I guess I could contrive a really bizarre situation but in essence, the course of action the officers took in this scenario were close to the best possible ones by which to make George dead. Granted we can't know what was truly in their mind, that I feel suffices for beyond a reasonable doubt. Personally, I'd have hated serving on this jury! Making a binary call with imperfect information is a terrible position to be in.

Anyway, what else besides a confession would meet the bar for a murder charge given the actions that unfolded? The officer had plenty of safe options and he chose the one which would lead to his death if he was telling the truth.

 No.8955

File: 1619055774192.jpg (34.63 KB, 278x411, 278:411, c5d2ed11676b7218_applejack….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8954
>there were other perfectly reasonable options for handling the situation where George would not have been put into a position that he would have died. In fact, of all the ways to handle this situation the officers took the course of action which would most likely lead to his death given the circumstances!
That's why I think a negligent-homicide charge is quite reasonable.  Chauvin's behavior could be said to be comparable to driving while noticeably impaired from intoxication (which can also lead to a charge of negligent homicide).

>Anyway, what else besides a confession would meet the bar for a murder charge given the actions that unfolded?
If he had recently received training that warned that the type of restraint he used could be fatal and he had been instructed not to use it on someone who complains of breathing difficulty.

>The officer had plenty of safe options and he chose the one which would lead to his death if he was telling the truth.
OK, but that doesn't really mean that he intended for Floyd to die.  Like, if you have plenty of safe options for transportation but you decide to drive drunk anyway and end up killing someone, you'd only get hit with negligent homicide, not murder.

 No.8956

>>8955
>If he had recently received training that warned that the type of restraint he used could be fatal and he had been instructed not to use it on someone who complains of breathing difficulty.
Shouldn't he be able to figure that out for himself? Does it take training to know that when a person is having breathing problems you shouldn't apply pressure to the chest, neck, and throat area? To me, that is common sense.

 No.8957

>>8956
>Shouldn't he be able to figure that out for himself?
Well, yeah, and that's why I think his actions constitute criminally negligent homicide.  Whereas if he had done in defiance of official training, it would be more indicative of an intent to kill rather than mere negligence.

 No.8958

>>8955
As for the DUI analogy, I respect where you are coming from. But at least in the state of CA, you can be convicted of second degree on a DUI homicide.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/dui/laws/dui-murder/
"A prosecutor can file murder charges any time there is a DUI fatality and the prosecutor can prove “implied malice.”

Malice may be implied when:

   The driver’s conduct showed a “wanton disregard” for life, and
   The facts show that the driver was especially aware of the risk his or her conduct created."

Going by this standard, even if this is Chauvin commiting a metaphorical DUI, I'd say he is still guilty of second degree murder because he showed disregard for life with his actions and I do not believe he could reasonably have not understood the risk of his conduct.

I mean, we obviously can't apply a CA DUI standard to a non CA murder trial! But my point being that reckless forms of negligence do count for second degree murder as far as *some* law goes and I don't feel it is against the rule of law that it be applied in this way in this case. Your thoughts?

 No.8959

File: 1619057595988.png (655.57 KB, 549x909, 61:101, applejack_sweater_sketch_r….png) ImgOps Google

>>8958
>Your thoughts?
I'm not familiar with the particular laws of Minnesota, but if the "murder" charges don't require intent to kill, but merely “wanton disregard” for life, then yes, I think they could apply to Chauvin's case.

 No.8960

File: 1619058558827.png (282.07 KB, 788x852, 197:213, Untitled.png) ImgOps Google

>>8959
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

See the most relevant part attached as image.

Quote for emphasis:
"It is not necessary for the State to prove the Defendant had an *intent* to kill George Floyd, but it must prove that the Defendant committed or *attempted* to commit the underlying felony of Assault in the Third Degree".

There's a lot of nuance in there outside that quote, but I think the instructions are actually really well written! I wish I had something like this provided on the jury I served on, haha.

 No.8961

>>8960
>"It is not necessary for the State to prove the Defendant had an *intent* to kill George Floyd...
OK, then yeah, the Second-Degree Murder charge makes sense (assuming that all the other elements of it are satisfied).  

 No.8962

>>8961
Nice, well I'm not gonna drill down further but you have the materials now if you feel like going through the instructions and applying the law based on your understanding of the facts.

Good talking to ya.

 No.8963

>>8962
>Good talking to ya.
Same here!  Have a good night!

 No.8966

>>8951
Here's the video I've seen for this, I notice the timestamps don't quite line up perfect so I suspect you might have been looking at a different one, so I want to link it hopefully to avoid confusion.

>Do you have reason to question the judgement in this case? I'm interested in hearing your take on the ruling. From my perspective it seems pretty sound based on the testimony.
Yes. Quite a fair bit. First and foremost, it seems undeniable from all information presented in the case that it was not premeditated or otherwise intentional that Floyd was killed, so the idea of murder goes right out the window to start with.

This aside, the evidence I have seen following along the trial seems to indicate that Floyd suffered a significant overdose of drugs, which also seems to line up with his behavior during the time of the stop and subsequent arrest.
In addition, there do not seem to be any marks as far as I have heard of any damage or bruising to Floyd's body, and body camera footage suggests at the very least that Chauvin was not on his neck the entire time, and does not appear to be putting significant pressure on given the lack of exertion. Besides that, pressure to the back of the neck does not choke you. Certainly not pressure that doesn't leave a mark.
This seems to be why it is taught as a non-lethal hold, as well.
Given this information, again, murder seems entirely unreasonable. Manslaughter is possible, but given he acted according to police training, the liability as I see it should be on those training him, not the man himself for using a hold taught by that department.

> But whether it's murder or not, it is still evidence to my original point - that the unrest which followed was justified and this is not a case of "the person deserved lethal force". Do you think *anyone* or the city/department did absolutely anything wrong in the George Floyd case?
I'm sure they did. Even if we ignore the angle you're thinking of, they did. The mayor made a lot of statements that are just plain irresponsible. Calling it murder before the verdict was declared.
Beyond that, though, I don't disagree with much of the stuff you point out in your recap of the bodycamera footage, and find police in general overreact and escalate situations.
And, of course, I'm opposed to the war on drugs, so that Floyd felt necessary to risk overdose to prevent going to jail I ultimately place on the state as well.

>~2:00 - Police are already overly aggressive and adversarial. Yelling "Show me your hands". A fake 20$ bill does not warrant such aggression and this only serves to escalate. This is already pretty problematic, though nothing criminal (on the cops part). Still, this is bad police work and none of this had to happen if the officer questioning floyd didn't turn this from a friendly questioning to a threatening one. Already, 2 minutes in, I see plenty to be *mildly* upset about. Not rioting levels, but this is a crappy job done by the officer questioning george.
I agree completely.
But, crappy work like this doesn't equate to a murder charge.

>~3:30 - Hard to see but it appears he has been handcuffed. George yells that he isn't resisting, but from this view it's impossible to tell what's happening. Floyd has committed no crimes (it can't be said based on what the officers know that he produced this fake 20, anyone could have been in possession of one and passed it accidentally). If he had a history of passing fake 20s and the cops knew this going in, then arrest would be warranted. This is not even something worthy of police attention, but that's getting off topic.
As I understand, it wasn't just the fake 20, it was the irradict behavior and, although I can't seem to find this again so it might be me misremembering, apparently taking a banana?
Nonetheless, I 100% agree the escalation was uncalled for.

>~5:30 - the cop explains he put george in cuffs because he wasn't listening. The body cam footage was from a different cop and I can't hear much of the conversation they had before he was asked to step out of the vehicle. What little I heard included "yes sir". My impression is that even if this is 'lawful detainment' it's shit and shouldn't have happened.
Possible. I'm certainly not against the idea that the detainment was unlawful. They absolutely escalated it.
Though this returns to the earlier item, that doesn't mean something is murder.

>~10:00 - they've escorted george to the car. He is not being violent towards the cops but he is scared and panicking and not complying. The officers are failing to deescalate the situation, causing him to panic more. Yelling, forceful pushing. It is true that george is not complying, but granted the state he is in that is not cause for escalation. As far as george is concerned, he is fighting for his life (I can't breathe) and compliance under those circumstances is not easy. That the police in this instance give up on de-escalation and go straight to force is bad police work and shouldn't have happened.
Again, I'd agree, they don't seem to have much patience, and aren't trying to explain things much.
This said, I think the reaction is more the consequence of the drugs, than the 'fighting for his life' fear you seem to see. Especially given his fear of being put in the car.

>~11:40 - despite not actually being a threat to anyone, handcuffed behind his back and panicking from shortness of breath, the police start piling on him and using the 'hold'. Despite him clearly indicating a medical emergency, the police decide not to assist him and continue to exacerbate the problem. That's worthy of a riot right there.
They seem to do so because he's actively resisting being put in the car, which they've struggled to put him in for several minutes at this point.
I don't really understand your thinking here. Should he just be let go unsecured?

As to the medical emergancy, I'm not quite so sure it was clear. Not at first, anyway. He was fine when they pulled him out of the car the first time, it seemed, and he seemed to be saying it was a consequence of the claustrophobia. And unfortunately after the hold, an angry mob started forming very quickly, which would seem to be why neither the police nor the EMTs provided medical treatment there. Dangerous area.

I do also have to say, what exactly was the medical care they were supposed to give?
Because, I don't think there is one that you can really do in the field for an overdose like this.
Only thing I can think of is CPR, which by that point, like I said, had the issue of the mob.
Otherwise, the best they could do was to get him to a hospital, but, his refusal to get in the car seems to have prevented that.

>Alright, I've seen it now! Given that george indicated he was having a medical emergency and the officers decided that under the circumstances they should pin his throat, I *would* call that murder.
Two things:
1, they did not pin his throat.
The back of your neck is not your throat.
2, murder is intentional. Not simple negligence.

> They choose to ignore a medical emergency because he was not complying (because he was having a medical emergency!)
Again, what would you have them do?
Get him to the hospital as quickly as possible seems the obvious one to me. But, he refused to get in the car.
What kind of field treatment do you give someone exhibiting a severe drug overdose?

As said, once he was out, the mob was present, which is also why it seems the EMTs did not do anything at the scene either. But as to before, what should have been done?

>How can one ever prove racism then? You have created a bar so high that only the admission of racism can determine racism.
Why on earth would you assume a statistical likelyhood of something occuring immediately means racism?
Why would that ever be the standard for racism?
You realize there's a million odd reasons to explain any given statistic, right?
Do you think that colleges give preferential treatment to Asians, due to their performance in academics?

>As for those statistics, kinda proves the point that the system is racist! If black people were having these kinds of higher criminal rates in all countries that would say something, but that it only happens like this in america means something. What do you believe it means if not racism?
A million different social factors.
The same reason why, when you split the racial groups, some do better than others. Nigerian immigrants seem to do exceptionally well, for example.
Culture plays a massive role in these kind of things. It's why, as another example, the Scottish have different rates of crime than its mainland. Despite both groups being 'white'.

>But it's better than making the bar of evidence so high that nothing can be proven.
I don't think that's my goal.
My trouble is, you've got to prove causation.
You need to give a direct link, not a presumption.
Especially when we start getting into race-specific changes as seems to be the typical proposed changes I've seen. I'm not willing to accept racist policies, with the claim that it's to 'stop racism', when that racism hasn't been for certain marked.

>It's not right to say that just because one demonstration were violent that all people of that movement or the movement at large is violent
I'd use the phrase "permissive of violence", myself.
Though some seem outright supportive.

But, I can understand your thinking, and won't fault you for it. I think differently ,however.

>I think I could say there are elements within a movement which can be violent, but that's the nature of not being able to pick and choose who is a member.
Condemnation helps massively.

>I almost never see republicans condemn it. If you are one who does, you are one of the few I personally have seen. More often than not I see people saying it was really antifa trying to disrupt a peaceful protest.
Maybe it's a difference of the people we hang out with. Maybe you're around al ot more extremists than I am.

>So, I hope you believe me when I say the bulk of people on the left condemn rioting, looting, beating of innocents in blm protests
I suppose it's not something either of us will effectively be able to 'prove'.

How about we change it to politicians, then.
I've not seen much of any left-wing politicians condemn the violence, and Maxine Waters seems to frankly be encouraging it.

That I think must change. They should be calling for peace, not an escalation.

>I guess, so long as we do not trust Christians, Republicans, and White Nationalists in the same blanket way I'm at least okay with you as acting consistently, despite disagreeing!
If they are not properly policing their own, sure.

>Though honestly, you've again set the bar so high that really nobody as a group can be trusted.
Well, honestly, I lean to the 'keep your rifle by your side' aspect to these things.
Which is a big complaint I have of the police; They seem to be actively preventing people from defending themselves from violent agitators in the mob.
We should have "roof koreans" as the phrase goes, preventing these riots.
if the police refuse to do their duty, citizens should arm themselves, and defend what is theirs.
It shouldn't matter what sort of group is smashing your stuff, be it BLM, Christians, Communists, or White Nationalists.

>Not looking for petty internet fights.
I will say I appreciate your civility in this post. But, yeah, the "stick up ass" thing was definitely a bad idea.
I don't like it when people presume my arguments, and I don't think people who refuse to engage with an assumed argument they never made have a "stick up their ass".

 No.8968

>>8952
To separate this since I think it likely to get lost in my massive post, what is the medical treatment exactly you think that Floyd should have received?

Because outside of CPR, I just don't see what could have been done. He wouldn't go in the car, after all, so racing him to the hospital wasn't an option.

 No.8973

>>8966
>Chauvin was not on his neck the entire time, and does not appear to be putting significant pressure on given the lack of exertion.
Wouldn't most of the pressure come from Chauvin's bodyweight?  I don't think he needs to exert himself much to put a lot a pressure on Floyd.

>Besides that, pressure to the back of the neck does not choke you.
It does tend to compress the lungs though and make it harder for the diaphragm muscle to expand the chest to draw in new air.

 No.8974

>>8973
To some extent, but his full bodyweight didn't appear to be on Floyd as far as I have seen either.
And given the lack of bruising or any other such damages on Floyd's body, it doesn't seem there was a significant amount more generally.

>It does tend to compress the lungs though and make it harder for the diaphragm muscle to expand the chest to draw in new air.
Possibly, in much the same way as any pressure on the chest would, but I feel like this is a weighty stretch for a murder conviction.

Especially when, again, no marks seem to be present whatsoever.

 No.9002

>>8966
>premeditated or otherwise intentional that Floyd was killed,
That's not required to have committed second degree murder, see >>8960

You are mistaken about how the law works.

I'll get to the rest of your post a little later but right off the bat I think it's important to get this point out there.

 No.9003

>>9002
I don't think bodily harm was intentional, so that's the same problem.
It doesn't change anything, just pushes the cart further down the road.
No harm was intentional. This is apparent simply by the hold being taught as a non-lethal hold by the department.

 No.9005

>>9003
I'm confused, did you read my post and the screenshot?

"It is not necessary for the State to prove the Defendant had an *intent* to kill George Floyd"

Intent had no place in the courtroom for a second degree conviction.

 No.9006

File: 1619102473455.png (282.07 KB, 788x852, 197:213, 1619058558827.png) ImgOps Google

>>9005
I did, and would ask that you do so as well, as your image shows the definition of assault which would not fit in this case

 No.9007

>>9006
I see, my bad. Guess that'll take a more through response which I'll get to later.

 No.9069

Should the status claimed about Floyd as a drug addict as well as a black militant and career criminal affect the general sense of moral empathy for his death (i.e. "his life mattered") as well as the specific case of what precisely to do to the police officers involved?

Suppose the situation was the same only I, a white person with no criminal record and no history of drug abuse, had a cop hold me down and press against my neck to the point where I could no longer breathe and died.

I'm not aware of using counterfeit bills as even being a criminal matter at all rather than a civil affair, but lets assume that I did actually do that, accidentally. Let's further assume that counterfeiting is a horrific and immoral act, maybe to the point that we'd call a clerk punching a customer in the face for trying to pass off a fake bill acting in a sympathetic fashion.

What would be right after my own death, then?

 No.9071

>>9069
>Suppose the situation was the same only I, a white person with no criminal record and no history of drug abuse, had a cop hold me down and press against my neck to the point where I could no longer breathe and died.
I think we wouldn't know about it in that situation.
There wouldn't be nation wide outcry and civil unrest, for certain.

Nobody here as far as I can tell had argued Floyd got what he deserved, or that it was a good thing he died, or anything like that.

 No.9074

>>9071
If you presently consider that Floyd didn't get what he deserved as well as that his death wasn't an understandable thing that couldn't have been helped, then what would have to change in the hypothetical so that you no longer believed as such?

At what level would it become getting what one deserves?

 No.9076

>>9074
>as well as that his death wasn't an understandable thing that couldn't have been helped,
I see it like that, myself.
Seems to me he died of a drug overdose, from the evidence that I had seen.

>At what level would it become getting what one deserves?
I suppose if he had killed someone, or severely injured them, and they took revenge, that could be considered "deserved".

If someone is about to shoot you and your family, and you shoot them first, that seems just, to me.
I guess deservedness is more a separate concept, though.

 No.9077

>>9076
>I see it like that, myself. Seems to me he died of a drug overdose, from the evidence that I had seen.

Ah, you're one of those. Gotcha.

>I guess deservedness is more a separate concept, though.

Perhaps.

So, I wonder, what level of involvement in drug addiction and the drug trade would you consider enough to pass the bar so that Floyd would've gotten what he morally deserved?

 No.9081

>>9077
>So, I wonder, what level of involvement in drug addiction and the drug trade would you consider enough to pass the bar so that Floyd would've gotten what he morally deserved?
None? I don't know what exactly goes in to it,  but I'm of the stance drugs ought be legal.

 No.9085

>>9081
>None?

Really?

Why do you say that?

And how, then, you deal with the fact that your viewpoint is fundamentally opposed to that of millions of Americans, particularly those on the right side of the spectrum, who are responsible for the current government policy in this area?

To be honest, it feels baffling to me to find somebody defending officer Chauvin against Floyd, articulating support for the conspiracy theory of the death being unrelated to Chauvin's actions, only to turn around and oppose the war on drugs.

I realize that it's theoretically possible, but it's sort of like running into a group of lambs and seeing them chase a wolf for dinner.

 No.9092

>>8950
>Was there any violent rioting and destruction in your city?
Following the verdict, it appears not.  "Minneapolis streets erupt in elation" is the Star Tribune headline.

 No.9096

>>9085
>Why do you say that?
Well, if you look at the rest of my post...
>>9081
>"I'm of the stance drugs ought be legal."
So,  that.

>And how, then, you deal with the fact that your viewpoint is fundamentally opposed to that of millions of Americans, particularly those on the right side of the spectrum, who are responsible for the current government policy in this area?
Why would that matter?
People can be wrong.  Governments can be wrong.

I've never changed a belief due to pressure from the mob, and don't intend to.

>articulating support for the conspiracy theory of the death being unrelated to Chauvin's actions,
What?
How in the world is this a conspiracy theory?

Or is this just shorthand for "believing something crazy"?
Because conspiracy theory refers to a specific sort of thing, not just "guy who swallows lethal dose of drugs dies".
You make it sound as though I think someone poisoned Floyd to set all this up.

>I realize that it's theoretically possible, but it's sort of like running into a group of lambs and seeing them chase a wolf for dinner.
Well,I'd say you haven't known many libertarian types, then.
Opposition to the drug war is pretty common there.
I'll admit, I'm probably a fair ways more extreme than a lot of people on it,  but legal drugs is a rising political idea.

 No.9142

>>9096
Deference to police officer authority such that calls of police misconduct are viewed as nefarious political agitation by far left extremists and the belief that cops are almost always your friends, being trustworthy public servants who wouldn't betray you in any circumstance, and so on... the general belief system that I've seen expressed by those who defend Chauvin and insist that he did nothing wrong tends to be something with no connection to libertarians. It's more like a particularly strident subject of conservatism. I think.

Given that said conservatives tend to be devout drug warriors, the combination of the Floyd death conspiracy theory with a general opposition to criminalization is odd. Speaking with you comes across like finding a unicorn.

I would describe the notion that someone who choked to death in public in a context where they were filmed being choked to death, described as being choked to death by the witnesses, and found clearly to have choked to death by independent analysis including exhaustive processing of the legal system... only, somehow, this didn't actually happen and some mysterious situation covered by unknown parties took place... I would see that as a conspiracy theory, yes, and would state that I guess I understand why some people are like that, even though I'm not like that.

 No.9143

>>9142
>Deference to police officer authority such that calls of police misconduct are viewed as nefarious political agitation by far left extremists and the belief that cops are almost always your friends, being trustworthy public servants who wouldn't betray you in any circumstance, and so on... the general belief system that I've seen expressed by those who defend Chauvin and insist that he did nothing wrong tends to be something with no connection to libertarians. It's more like a particularly strident subject of conservatism. I think.
OK, well, I don't think that way, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it really.

I think police typically just squeeze money out of people these days.   I think there is good reason to have the institution of police,  as neutral facilitation of justice is vital.
But modern police don't really do much of that I say.

>Given that said conservatives tend to be devout drug warriors, the combination of the Floyd death conspiracy theory with a general opposition to criminalization is odd. Speaking with you comes across like finding a unicorn.
I still don't know what you mean by conspiracy,  but alright.
I don't think I'm that uncommon, I please give him my experiences talking with others.

>only, somehow, this didn't actually happen and some mysterious situation covered by unknown parties took place... I would see that as a conspiracy theory, yes, and would state that I guess I understand why some people are like that, even though I'm not like that.
Well I suppose the issue there is that I don't think you're retelling of events is accurate.

I do not think that fresher on the back of the neck that does not leave a mark on set neck constitutes being choked. The spine is in the way after all.

 No.9145

>>9142
>they were filmed being choked to death
Um, Floyd most certainly wasn't choked to death.  The term "choke" refers specifically to compressing or obstructing the trachea.

 No.9147

>>9143
>>9145
I'm not actually interested in discussing the conspiracy theory itself. I don't believe in it and aren't, to be honest, that interested in it. I'm more interested in the broader context of why Floyd was in trouble in the first as well as what will happen now, after the case related to his death has been seen through. At least, that's what I'm interested in at the moment.

In medical terms, I'm aware that "choke" has a specific definition different than the colloquial one. I'm referring to how Floyd died due to the cop's actions preventing him from breathing, with Floyd being in a situation where he'd be alive today if the cop hadn't chosen to behave as he did.

 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 ]