Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DarkandStormy

George Floyd Protests

Recommended Posts

Just now, freefourur said:

No i haven't told you to shut up. That is what you did. But keep trying to change what you said. We can all read it here.

Neither of us told the other to shut up.  You merely attempted to elude that my responses were only being made in an attempt to "shut you up."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

This is semantics and obfuscation of what happened.  If this had been anyone but a cop, they would be charged. 

Apples and oranges, unfortunately.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

I'm not a lawyer so I'll just defer to a state AG on this one.

 

Thank you for posting the belief of an actual attorney from MN.  I'm okay if you stand behind his statement.  We will just have to wait and see how it all plays out. 

I wish the destruction of the city would stop though.  Hits close to home and doesn't help the community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

Neither of us told the other to shut up.  You merely attempted to elude that my responses were only being made in an attempt to "shut you up."

 

1 hour ago, richNcincy said:

 

According to the statue it was not a murder.  So please use the correct terminology.

 

You still haven't specified which elements of 3rd degree murder aren't met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, richNcincy said:

Apples and oranges, unfortunately.
 

 

Why? Unlike what some people clearly believe, cops do not have the authority to murder people, or unintentionally cause their deaths through excessive and unnecessary violence.  However you view this, the cops were definitely in the wrong here.  They directly caused this man's death.  They don't get a pass when no one else would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, freefourur said:

 

You still haven't specified which elements of 3rd degree murder aren't met.

Sorry, I'm trying to do my taxes finally.

 

The bold word will be the defining factor:

Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, richNcincy said:

 

Thank you for posting the belief of an actual attorney from MN.  I'm okay if you stand behind his statement.  We will just have to wait and see how it all plays out. 

I wish the destruction of the city would stop though.  Hits close to home and doesn't help the community. 

It appears that you were in fact wrong and I was no knowingly spreading misinformation.  Glad that is settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, richNcincy said:

Sorry, I'm trying to do my taxes finally.

 

The bold word will be the defining factor:

Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree

kneeling on someone's neck for 7 minutes when they stated they can't breathe meets the second element. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Why? Unlike what some people clearly believe, cops do not have the authority to murder people, or unintentionally cause their deaths through excessive and unnecessary violence.  However you view this, the cops were definitely in the wrong here.  They directly caused this man's death.  They don't get a pass when no one else would.

I am 1000000% behind this statement:

However you view this, the cops were definitely in the wrong here.  They directly caused this man's death.  They don't get a pass when no one else would.

 

When incidents such as this happen, the police officers involved are almost never convicted of murder.  I believe it is because murder charges generally need to show the person(officer) intended to commit the act. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, freefourur said:

It appears that you were in fact wrong and I was no knowingly spreading misinformation.  Glad that is settled.

Ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

Sorry, I'm trying to do my taxes finally.

 

The bold word will be the defining factor:

Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree

 

How does this not fit the bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MissinOhio said:

 

How does this not fit the bill?

It just does not.  And again, is what a jury will determine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, freefourur said:

kneeling on someone's neck for 7 minutes when they stated they can't breathe meets the second element. 

I do not believe it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

It just does not.  And again, is what a jury will determine.

 

I am asking, why, according to you, it just does not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MissinOhio said:

 

I am asking, why, according to you, it just does not?

The state has to prove the person has to have a depraved mind and the act was eminently dangerous to human life.  This may be hard to prove.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Gonna go ahead challenge this notion (like in the police thread) that "the vast majority" of cops are good.  40% of officer households report domestic violence.  If "the vast majority of cops" were good, we'd see other officers intervene in cases like George Floyd's.  Maybe we just have different definitions of "vast" or "good."

 

How many cops are calling on the officers in Minneapolis to be charged?  I have not heard one.  This happens in every case.  "Regretful" or "unfortunate" incident, but the system protects itself.  No one in law enforcement calls for these guys to be charged.  That the four were promptly fired instead of put on paid administrative leave is a minor miracle I suppose.

There are some...basically the Detroit COP is.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2020/05/28/detroit-police-chief-condemns-minneapolis-cops-actions-arrest-calls-murder/5276452002/

 

Quote

Craig called Floyd's death a "murder" and said if the incident had happened in Detroit, the officers would be in jail.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

The state has to prove the person has to have a depraved mind and the act was eminently dangerous to human life.  This may be hard to prove.  

 

I will stick to the thread topic at hand, and keep with current events.  Police use of force.  This officer had more than a dozen complaints against him in regards to use of force.  When a suspect is restrained in the manner that he was (which officers discourage) there is a legitimate case.  It's time to start holding these officers accountable for their acts.  We can see in the video what happened.  This is not a he said, he said situation.  A human life was lost because of an act committed by an officer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MissinOhio said:

 

I will stick to the thread topic at hand, and keep with current events.  Police use of force.  This officer had more than a dozen complaints against him in regards to use of force.  When a suspect is restrained in the manner that he was (which officers discourage) there is a legitimate case.  It's time to start holding these officers accountable for their acts.  We can see in the video what happened.  This is not a he said, he said situation.  A human life was lost because of an act committed by an officer. 

I don't think the prior complaints of use of force can be used in this forthcoming case. If they can, that would help the case drastically.

We are in complete agreement as with most of the country, officers need to be held accountable for their actions and in this instance the cell phone video will play a huge role. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/ahmaud-arbery/611539/?fbclid=IwAR0cXFrNFFgTI4zJXqHomYx_G55W0maa3IGSnGUKYbh_7uZ-aAhFscrgGik

Quote

I just don’t think Americans fully realize how terrorizing it is to black males when we are falsely suspected as violent criminals. All Americans seem to be thinking about is their fear of us—not our fear of their fear. Black males fear racist fear because we know from experience what happens when the police are called, when the Klan is called, when faces are reddened, when purses or ropes or guns are clutched, when they cross the street away from us, or cross the street toward us clutching their police badges, or their badges of white masculinity.

 

It is terrifying to produce so much unwanted and unwarranted fear. And then we are harmed. And then we are killed. And then our killers claim self-defense. And then our killers cast us—the unarmed ones, the dead ones—as the aggressors, as Gregory McMichael cast Arbery in the police report, justifying his son pulling the trigger; as George Zimmerman’s lawyers cast Trayvon Martin in a strikingly similar case.

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm

FB_IMG_1590773572849.jpg


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

I am 1000000% behind this statement:

However you view this, the cops were definitely in the wrong here.  They directly caused this man's death.  They don't get a pass when no one else would.

 

When incidents such as this happen, the police officers involved are almost never convicted of murder.  I believe it is because murder charges generally need to show the person(officer) intended to commit the act. 

 

There have been plenty of incidents in which cops shot people in the back, invaded the wrong homes and killed the innocent occupants, shot people with toys, etc. etc. In most cases, there was clear intent and overwhelming evidence against them, and it didn't make any difference to the outcome.  They just have to say "I was scared" and they are protected time and time again from prosecutors, by their peers, by police unions and certainly by juries in the few instances charges are ever brought.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MissinOhio said:

 

I will stick to the thread topic at hand, and keep with current events.  Police use of force.  This officer had more than a dozen complaints against him in regards to use of force.  When a suspect is restrained in the manner that he was (which officers discourage) there is a legitimate case.  It's time to start holding these officers accountable for their acts.  We can see in the video what happened.  This is not a he said, he said situation.  A human life was lost because of an act committed by an officer. 

 

I have no idea why police departments and governments would want to keep officers around that have had long lists of complaints against them.  It's just asking for trouble and tarnishing their reputations.  If they can't get a community to trust them, they're going to be less likely to stop crimes and less likely to solves the crimes that do occur.  And they risk the type of violence we're now seeing, if not endless lawsuits when these bad cops do harm someone.  It doesn't make any sense to keep protecting them other than that it's simply another "good 'ol boy" network".

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

I have not seen or read much of these.  That is good.  But again...it's only happening in the most blatant case, caught on video.  Eric Garner?  Philando Castile?  Alton Sterling?  Tamir Rice?  Sean Reed?  Stephon Clark?

I think the difference is, and it is a nuanced difference, that with say Tamir Rice for example or Sam Dubose, or Philando Castile, there is at least some semblance of a gray area in the law and use of force laws that provide at least some level of defensible action of the police officers in those cases. For example, Tamir Rice, it was at least arguable that the cop reacted to a perceived threat of a gun without properly taking all the facts into account. Was the cop wrong, yes, but was there an argument for a legal mistake there, most likely (which is why you see some people defending the cops)

Philando Castile - I found more troubling, but again, there is a nuanced argument there that while the cop made a mistake, he should be granted legal immunity there. (I would not make that argument myself, but I can at least understand the gray area).

 

Contrast that with the Flynn case. You do not have a legal defense for the officer because, he was not following procedure (so he does not get the benefit of legal immunity), he was using deadly force at a time where deadly force was not required (the video showed the Flynn had essentially submitted to arrest by that point) and he did not pull back on his use of deadly force when the "perceived threat" had been extinguished. I think that is why you have many in law enforcement speaking out against the actions of the Minneapolis officer, because his actions were far over the top of what a reasonable officer would have done in that situation, and far and beyond any potential nuanced gray area that may have existed. In other words, his actions were completely indefensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GCrites80s said:

They feel like they aren't going to be able to find people to replace them. Not many people want to do the job.

There should be nationwide police reform.   What makes it difficult is every state has different training, laws and individual issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I have no idea why police departments and governments would want to keep officers around that have had long lists of complaints against them.  It's just asking for trouble and tarnishing their reputations.  If they can't get a community to trust them, they're going to be less likely to stop crimes and less likely to solves the crimes that do occur.  And they risk the type of violence we're now seeing, if not endless lawsuits when these bad cops do harm someone.  It doesn't make any sense to keep protecting them other than that it's simply another "good 'ol boy" network".

Welcome to having a union that's job is to defend your rights as a union paying member. And no this isn't an anti union statement, it's just a fact statement about what police unions are set up to do. Particularly when department have multiple unions, one for the brass and one for basic patrol officers, no one wants to give up bargaining power and they protect their own at all costs. Then it takes a manslaughter to get a sh*tty officer off the force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

THere is definitely something wrong in Minneapolis. Between this and the Castile matter last year. There needs to be some major restructuring in the police force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

 

Open carry is legal and a protected right.

 

Black people have been shot and killed for doing that.  With no consequences for the cops.  Again, it's about a fundamental difference in how demographics are treated by the justice system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

Welcome to having a union that's job is to defend your rights as a union paying member. And no this isn't an anti union statement, it's just a fact statement about what police unions are set up to do. Particularly when department have multiple unions, one for the brass and one for basic patrol officers, no one wants to give up bargaining power and they protect their own at all costs. Then it takes a manslaughter to get a sh*tty officer off the force. 

 

Unions are just a symptom, IMO.  There have always been cops that abused their positions.  Bad hiring and training practices, along with the militarization of police forces, have just escalated the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

There should be nationwide police reform.

 

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Black people have been shot and killed for doing that.  With no consequences for the cops.  Again, it's about a fundamental difference in how demographics are treated by the justice system.

 

I'm aware and that is why I said we need police reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

 

 

I'm aware and that is why I said we need police reform.

 

Police reform won't solve the problem until we address the bias/lack of accountability that supports the current system.  Better training and hiring is good and I would fully support that, but you're still going to have some people who get through that should not be cops.  This is going to be especially true in small towns and rural communities where there are already limited hiring options and where the good ol boy network is strongest.  To truly start to address accountability and internal bias issues, there need to at least be 3rd party investigations in all cases, preferably outside the given departments.    

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, freefourur said:

 

I guess i was right all along.

 

I can see the not guilty verdict by the 99% white jury already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think that is a pretty clear cut case for those charges. The bigger question is why did it take 5 days to bring those charges, unless they were debating 1st degree murder. Still, it seems they could have charged manslaughter and 2nd degree and then up to 1st degree later on if the evidence demonstrated that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I can see the not guilty verdict by the 99% white jury already.

Minneapolis will certainly not have an African American jury since they have a very small African American population. Large somali community and Veitnamese community so they have some diversity there, but not a huge black community. 

 

In this case, I dont see him getting off. Too much outrage and it appears the video shows too much to create the gray area, but of course you never know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

We were both right. 

OK sure. You were right when you said it isn't murder. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, freefourur said:

OK sure. You were right when you said it isn't murder. 

 

 

Why can't you just say, you're right, we both were correct according to the charges filed.  It's not that hard to comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Unions are just a symptom, IMO.  There have always been cops that abused their positions.  Bad hiring and training practices, along with the militarization of police forces, have just escalated the issue

I would say police hiring atleast in Cleveland is going the opposite direction. They're training people to be guardians not warriors. That's only been like that for maybe a half decade now and reform doesn't happen overnight. 

 

The militarization occured after the LA county bank robbery were cops with pistols were outgunned by armed criminals with barrel mag AK47s. It was a total bloodbath and it scared the crap out of every department. 

 

I think that having high powered rifles and an armoured cars is essential to policing, but a department doesn't need to be armed to the teeth.

 

In Cleveland we only have about 100 ARs and people trained to use them, and we have like two armored vehicles used by SWAT. We only recently got riot gear (mine doesn't even fit me) and have a field force team that is rarely used. Having the tools is important, but you don't need to be arming your entire force with them for daily use. You just need them around for the few times it's needed to keep people alive (example: success tech). 

 

By the way. The training practices aren't bad.  I will tell you right now what that Minnesota officer did is one hundred percent the opposite of what you are trained to do. As soon as you handcuff someone and they are on the ground you need to get them off their belly so as to avoid positional asphyxiation. Knee to the neck is a definite obvious no. So let's not pretend officers are poorly trained. They just ignore their training. 

 

Bad hiring will always be tough, no one wants to do the job and it's hard to find enough squeaky clean qualified people that represent the demographic that you're policing. On top of that every suburb around you pays twice as much to do a fraction of the work. 

 

Edit: sorry if my grammar is bad, I always respond in my phone and I should probably stop doing that. 

 

 

Edited by KFM44107

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

Why can't you just say, you're right, we both were correct according to the charges filed.  It's not that hard to comprehend.

because you are not right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, richNcincy said:

 

According to the statue it was not a murder.  So please use the correct terminology.

 

3 hours ago, richNcincy said:

 

I'm merely stating you are knowingly posting misinformation. 

 

3 hours ago, richNcincy said:

Was it a horrible tragedy that should have never happened, yes.  Should the officers be held accountable for their action/lack of action, yes.  Was it murder according to the Minnesota statute, no.  

 

3 hours ago, richNcincy said:

You are correct, I only posted Murder 1st degree.  But none of the murder statutes fit the crime.  The end.

 

2 hours ago, richNcincy said:

No one ever said it was.  But we all know these officers will be charged with involuntary manslaughter, not murder.  

And I reiterate my stance on this issue, it should have never happened and is a complete tragedy.  

Which one of these statements is correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

We were both right. 

 

2 hours ago, richNcincy said:

But we all know these officers will be charged with involuntary manslaughter, not murder.  

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...