|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 01 2020 00:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2020 00:19 Vivax wrote:On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge. As a medical professional you should also know that the airway isn't as essential as the blood supply through carotids and vertebral arteries. People who get hanged lose consciousness in less than half a minute because the blood supply is interrupted. You don't lose consciousness for holding your breath for a minute. Right? I had thought people had already pointed out it was a blood choke not an airway choke? This report will be used to call the people that remain in the streets unreasonable though I'm sure. See my edit above. I'm very skeptical that this maneuver could cause a "blood choke" (i.e. cut off blood supply as the primary cause of death). It's much more likely that positional asphyxiation was the cause of death. Also bear in mind that everyone involved should receive some kind of criminal charge akin to criminal negligence for a professional. All first responders are required to be trained in at least CPR, and if you don't feel a pulse and don't start doing chest compressions (explicitly said in the video evidence by one of the cops), you are criminally negligent. Not doing compressions for over 2 minutes is incredibly damning, and the other cops should easily receive charges as well.
It sure as shit can. Not a competitive one, but with a couple buddies and a vehicle holding the guy in a compromising position, hell yeah you can.
People are in the streets around the country because we're done with this "let the process play out" irrationally optimistic skepticism dance.
To be clear it doesn't matter if this guy and his crew all get 25 years+ (they won't) the toothpaste is out of tube and there isn't a typical "back to the regular work week" to go back to as a distraction.
|
On June 01 2020 00:28 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:15 StalkerTL wrote:On June 01 2020 00:13 puppykiller wrote:On June 01 2020 00:05 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:57 Furikawari wrote:On May 31 2020 23:54 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:47 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. It were spontaneous gatherings, filled with anger. Then humans being humans. I doubt even a tenth of the protesters participated in the lootings. It should not be the focus of those events, nor shall it be entirely ignored. Sounds like we agree again. I might not have any issue with your perspective. The people I disagree with are the ones thinking that: 1: The looting/arson is the pathway of change we should be actively pursuing, 2: That this looting/arson is commendable so long as it is being done by or on the behalf of oppressed minorities 3: Those who oppose it don't value black lives enough From your first post thet I noticed 3 or 4 pages ago I was going to remind people about Bourdieu and social lift (ascenceur social in french) and how the luckiest one that can benefit of the broken lift are the harder to defend the system. You're such a perfect example of this. Survivorship bias is such a common aspect of minority success stories that it’s kind of disgusting. Pascal Siakam and the NBA tried to push the idea that anyone can be as successful as him through pure hard work. Yes he worked hard but it’s actually quite insulting to suggest hard work will bring someone from Africa out of poverty when Pascal Siakam hit the gene jackpot required to play in the NBA. On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night. Yes and you have to again ask yourself why people would be OK with setting fire to some other guy’s business in the same urban environment as them. A few miles away is still pretty much the same city if not the same electorate. Because they don’t care. You have to ask yourself why they don’t care. The solution to riots was to deal with the causes long ago. "The action is ok because the people doing it believe it is ok" How about you ask why people might feel OK about these actions rather than being obsessed with property and SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. It is actually very important to ask yourself why people feel OK about burning down some guy’s property. Very fair point. I don't know if you think your the one I should be asking so if not please notify me. This is what I think your argument is. Please tell me if this is a reasonable representation. You believe people who are burning feel no collective ownership?
Yes people who burn their own cities - and riots are generally people burning their own cities - do so because they don’t belong in their own environments and don’t feel any reason to preserve it.
It is like the Russian serfs who trashed St Petersburg during the February Revolution or the black community during the Birmingham riots after the KKK and local police tried to kill black leaders with explosives. In both cases, it was a pretty sudden and unorganised explosion of violence made in reaction to a more powerful forced trying to maintain control.
To the people rioting, they no doubt feel that they have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. The majority of people would rather sit down, do nothing and have their problems heard and dealt with in good faith because that takes so much less effort and personal risk. The fact they’re out an rioting should tell you how they feel about their lives and the environment and community they live in (all of it being pretty bad).
It’s not a good thing that the riots are harming innocent people but the solution was there a long time ago and people just ignored it to maintain the status quo. You can’t really blame people for burning everything down when that everything has given them little reason to care about it.
|
On June 01 2020 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 01 2020 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2020 00:19 Vivax wrote:On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge. As a medical professional you should also know that the airway isn't as essential as the blood supply through carotids and vertebral arteries. People who get hanged lose consciousness in less than half a minute because the blood supply is interrupted. You don't lose consciousness for holding your breath for a minute. Right? I had thought people had already pointed out it was a blood choke not an airway choke? This report will be used to call the people that remain in the streets unreasonable though I'm sure. See my edit above. I'm very skeptical that this maneuver could cause a "blood choke" (i.e. cut off blood supply as the primary cause of death). It's much more likely that positional asphyxiation was the cause of death. Also bear in mind that everyone involved should receive some kind of criminal charge akin to criminal negligence for a professional. All first responders are required to be trained in at least CPR, and if you don't feel a pulse and don't start doing chest compressions (explicitly said in the video evidence by one of the cops), you are criminally negligent. Not doing compressions for over 2 minutes is incredibly damning, and the other cops should easily receive charges as well. It sure as shit can. Not a competitive one, but with a couple buddies and a vehicle holding the guy in a compromising position, hell yeah you can. People are in the streets around the country because we're done with this "let the process play out" irrationally optimistic skepticism dance. To be clear it doesn't matter if this guy and his crew all get 25 years+ (they won't) the toothpaste is out of tube and there isn't a typical "back to the regular work week" to go back to as a distraction.
It's not about "let the process play out". That's what the protests are for.
But you can't call for the system to bring justice within the system itself and then ask that same system to put down 1st degree murder charges when there simply isn't evidence for it. The medical and video evidence is clear. There doesn't seem to be bias in the medical report (the legal paperwork is a different discussion). You can't just trump up a 1st degree murder charge when the evidence isn't there. That's exactly the kind of corruption that has hurt people of all types for generations (but especially POC), so continuing to set a legal precedent to do so is a terrible idea.
Also Floyd was held down by two cops holding limbs or his body and Chauvin putting his knee on the back of his neck. The vehicle wasn't sitting on him and Chauvin's force was clearly not sufficient to do damage to the front of the neck (both the video and medical evidence show this). It's highly, highly unlikely that this cut off blood supply and was the primary cause of death. He would've passed out much sooner if that was the case.
|
On June 01 2020 00:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:22 farvacola wrote:
A big part of the problem is that death certificates and investigative findings do not look like or say what many people expect them to, and the language of death causation is a huge battleground in complex murder cases as a result. What's there is enough for a finding criminal liability for murder, but that won't fix the problem that the vast majority of juries in the US are unprepared to hold a cop guilty for what they have done. Ultimately people are using the language of "murder" and "choked/strangled to death" in a purely emotional fashion. There are particular legal and scientific definitions for what happened and we're gonna end up with more cops walking free if we don't use the right terms, proper evidence, and go for the right charges.
That last line is eerily similar to dems going after trump. They had everything and still failed.
|
On June 01 2020 00:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 01 2020 00:22 farvacola wrote:
A big part of the problem is that death certificates and investigative findings do not look like or say what many people expect them to, and the language of death causation is a huge battleground in complex murder cases as a result. What's there is enough for a finding criminal liability for murder, but that won't fix the problem that the vast majority of juries in the US are unprepared to hold a cop guilty for what they have done. Ultimately people are using the language of "murder" and "choked/strangled to death" in a purely emotional fashion. There are particular legal and scientific definitions for what happened and we're gonna end up with more cops walking free if we don't use the right terms, proper evidence, and go for the right charges. That last line is eerily similar to dems going after trump. They had everything and still failed.
The impeachment process is quite a bit different than the judicial process for criminal convictions. Impeachments are primarily political with a tinge of legal process added to them; criminal convictions are primarily legal processes with sociopolitical influence/corruption adding to the mix.
Also, the evidence against Trump, while pretty damning, wasn't even close to what we have here.
|
On June 01 2020 00:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2020 00:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 01 2020 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2020 00:19 Vivax wrote:On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge. As a medical professional you should also know that the airway isn't as essential as the blood supply through carotids and vertebral arteries. People who get hanged lose consciousness in less than half a minute because the blood supply is interrupted. You don't lose consciousness for holding your breath for a minute. Right? I had thought people had already pointed out it was a blood choke not an airway choke? This report will be used to call the people that remain in the streets unreasonable though I'm sure. See my edit above. I'm very skeptical that this maneuver could cause a "blood choke" (i.e. cut off blood supply as the primary cause of death). It's much more likely that positional asphyxiation was the cause of death. Also bear in mind that everyone involved should receive some kind of criminal charge akin to criminal negligence for a professional. All first responders are required to be trained in at least CPR, and if you don't feel a pulse and don't start doing chest compressions (explicitly said in the video evidence by one of the cops), you are criminally negligent. Not doing compressions for over 2 minutes is incredibly damning, and the other cops should easily receive charges as well. It sure as shit can. Not a competitive one, but with a couple buddies and a vehicle holding the guy in a compromising position, hell yeah you can. People are in the streets around the country because we're done with this "let the process play out" irrationally optimistic skepticism dance. To be clear it doesn't matter if this guy and his crew all get 25 years+ (they won't) the toothpaste is out of tube and there isn't a typical "back to the regular work week" to go back to as a distraction. It's not about "let the process play out". That's what the protests are for. But you can't call for the system to bring justice within the system itself and then ask that same system to put down 1st degree murder charges when there simply isn't evidence for it. The medical and video evidence is clear. There doesn't seem to be bias in the medical report (the legal paperwork is a different discussion). You can't just trump up a 1st degree murder charge when the evidence isn't there. That's exactly the kind of corruption that has hurt people of all types for generations (but especially POC), so continuing to set a legal precedent to do so is a terrible idea.
It's a cop, he could have written a manifesto detailing every aspect of what he planned to do and not get pinned for 1st degree.
I don't know the law in the state specifically (the ambiguity/inconsistency is part of the scam), but is that why we skipped 2nd degree? Because choking an unresponsive person without a pulse seems pretty damn intentional to me.
That said, I remember Freddie Gray.
|
On June 01 2020 00:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 01 2020 00:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 01 2020 00:22 farvacola wrote:
A big part of the problem is that death certificates and investigative findings do not look like or say what many people expect them to, and the language of death causation is a huge battleground in complex murder cases as a result. What's there is enough for a finding criminal liability for murder, but that won't fix the problem that the vast majority of juries in the US are unprepared to hold a cop guilty for what they have done. Ultimately people are using the language of "murder" and "choked/strangled to death" in a purely emotional fashion. There are particular legal and scientific definitions for what happened and we're gonna end up with more cops walking free if we don't use the right terms, proper evidence, and go for the right charges. That last line is eerily similar to dems going after trump. They had everything and still failed. The impeachment process is quite a bit different than the judicial process for criminal convictions. Impeachments are primarily political with a tinge of legal process added to them; criminal convictions are primarily legal processes with sociopolitical influence/corruption adding to the mix. Also, the evidence against Trump, while pretty damning, wasn't even close to what we have here.
I understand the differences. I just wanted to say it because inevitably it would have been brought up. So please, ignore me and continue the discussion. ^_^/
|
On June 01 2020 00:35 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:18 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 00:12 puppykiller wrote:On June 01 2020 00:09 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night. Who the police destroy for the status quo, and how they go about doing so is very unjust. It feels unjust every second of every day, because it is. "It's ok to destroy people who are not the police because the police destroy us" I can do stupid strawmen too. "People should get tear gassed and beaten for protesting for their right to stay alive." Rioters and people that support/approve of their actions value the lives more than the property. If you don't, you value the property more than the lives. The riot is the final bargaining chip of desperate people. I think what I said summarizes what you said. What do you think? I would argue what you said doesn't summarize what I said. I never said anything to the effect of: the cops are in the right for beating up people who are demonstrating on behalf of this cause. Your second statement just brings me back to my whole: donate your property to prove you value lives over property, otherwise their are pretty obviously some other factors at play going on beneath the surface. If you are interested in understanding this argument, please refer to the last few pages.
You: People shouldn't be destroying things, it isn't right
Me: People are destroying things because police are destroying people, and that is more important.
If I lived in a place where I could leverage my property and the hassle of filling out an insurance claim to save lives, I would in a heartbeat. Sadly I do not, so an insurance claim would not be viable the same way it is for the property being damaged in the riots. You're only looking at half of your argument.
|
On June 01 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 01 2020 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2020 00:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 01 2020 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2020 00:19 Vivax wrote:On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge. As a medical professional you should also know that the airway isn't as essential as the blood supply through carotids and vertebral arteries. People who get hanged lose consciousness in less than half a minute because the blood supply is interrupted. You don't lose consciousness for holding your breath for a minute. Right? I had thought people had already pointed out it was a blood choke not an airway choke? This report will be used to call the people that remain in the streets unreasonable though I'm sure. See my edit above. I'm very skeptical that this maneuver could cause a "blood choke" (i.e. cut off blood supply as the primary cause of death). It's much more likely that positional asphyxiation was the cause of death. Also bear in mind that everyone involved should receive some kind of criminal charge akin to criminal negligence for a professional. All first responders are required to be trained in at least CPR, and if you don't feel a pulse and don't start doing chest compressions (explicitly said in the video evidence by one of the cops), you are criminally negligent. Not doing compressions for over 2 minutes is incredibly damning, and the other cops should easily receive charges as well. It sure as shit can. Not a competitive one, but with a couple buddies and a vehicle holding the guy in a compromising position, hell yeah you can. People are in the streets around the country because we're done with this "let the process play out" irrationally optimistic skepticism dance. To be clear it doesn't matter if this guy and his crew all get 25 years+ (they won't) the toothpaste is out of tube and there isn't a typical "back to the regular work week" to go back to as a distraction. It's not about "let the process play out". That's what the protests are for. But you can't call for the system to bring justice within the system itself and then ask that same system to put down 1st degree murder charges when there simply isn't evidence for it. The medical and video evidence is clear. There doesn't seem to be bias in the medical report (the legal paperwork is a different discussion). You can't just trump up a 1st degree murder charge when the evidence isn't there. That's exactly the kind of corruption that has hurt people of all types for generations (but especially POC), so continuing to set a legal precedent to do so is a terrible idea. It's a cop, he could have written a manifesto detailing every aspect of what he planned to do and not get pinned for 1st degree. I don't know the law in the state specifically (the ambiguity/inconsistency is part of the scam), but is that why we skipped 2nd degree? Because choking an unresponsive person without a pulse seems pretty damn intentional to me.
I get the skepticism of the system, but I'm pretty sure that a written manifesto would be a little bit too much for even a cop to escape.
Minnesota's 3rd degree murder: ..."without intent to effect the death of any person, caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life"...
2nd degree murder: "Any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned in advance."
The incident clearly meets 3rd degree murder. To me, this seems like a slam dunk case if you go for that. My understanding (experienced lawyers, step in if needed) is that to meet 2nd degree, we would need evidence that Chauvin basically rolled up and said, "Hmm, I'm gonna kill this guy right here" or that he was actively trying to kill him in the moment and had consciously decided to do so. While you might be able to convince a jury of this, there just doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to have any real confidence in this charge (unless new evidence pops up), and my understanding is that it's the prosecutor's responsibility to strike a balance between the most severe charges that they can get and the best chance that they have at a successful conviction.
Honestly, I think that you wouldn't be able to get a murder charge at all in a lot of states, and if this didn't happen in a state with 3rd degree murder on the books, we may have had to settle for a manslaughter charge.
|
Which is also a pretty good point. If riots burnt down your store, wouldn’t insurance just cover most of it? Clear case of arson and isn’t an act of god or anything similar.
In fact, some people might take good advantage of the situation given the current economic climate.
|
The amount of journalists assaulted by police violence is insane. This guy has a huge thread with more than 50 examples...
One photographer's eyeball got destroyed by one of those non-lethals shots. She's pretty cavalier about it though:
+ Show Spoiler +
And about those store owners that need protecting... this VICE journalist was interviewing gas station owners when law enforcement come up, owners says hey this is private property and gets shot at by non-lethal rounds and flash bangs. Journalist clearly identifies as press, they walk up on him weapons aimed, put him on the ground then pepperspray his face as he is lying there...
|
|
|
On June 01 2020 01:09 Jockmcplop wrote:Its Christmas for cops.
If they continue with this, this will be the American Summer that the Arab Spring was.
|
On June 01 2020 01:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2020 00:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 01 2020 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2020 00:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 01 2020 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 01 2020 00:19 Vivax wrote:On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge. As a medical professional you should also know that the airway isn't as essential as the blood supply through carotids and vertebral arteries. People who get hanged lose consciousness in less than half a minute because the blood supply is interrupted. You don't lose consciousness for holding your breath for a minute. Right? I had thought people had already pointed out it was a blood choke not an airway choke? This report will be used to call the people that remain in the streets unreasonable though I'm sure. See my edit above. I'm very skeptical that this maneuver could cause a "blood choke" (i.e. cut off blood supply as the primary cause of death). It's much more likely that positional asphyxiation was the cause of death. Also bear in mind that everyone involved should receive some kind of criminal charge akin to criminal negligence for a professional. All first responders are required to be trained in at least CPR, and if you don't feel a pulse and don't start doing chest compressions (explicitly said in the video evidence by one of the cops), you are criminally negligent. Not doing compressions for over 2 minutes is incredibly damning, and the other cops should easily receive charges as well. It sure as shit can. Not a competitive one, but with a couple buddies and a vehicle holding the guy in a compromising position, hell yeah you can. People are in the streets around the country because we're done with this "let the process play out" irrationally optimistic skepticism dance. To be clear it doesn't matter if this guy and his crew all get 25 years+ (they won't) the toothpaste is out of tube and there isn't a typical "back to the regular work week" to go back to as a distraction. It's not about "let the process play out". That's what the protests are for. But you can't call for the system to bring justice within the system itself and then ask that same system to put down 1st degree murder charges when there simply isn't evidence for it. The medical and video evidence is clear. There doesn't seem to be bias in the medical report (the legal paperwork is a different discussion). You can't just trump up a 1st degree murder charge when the evidence isn't there. That's exactly the kind of corruption that has hurt people of all types for generations (but especially POC), so continuing to set a legal precedent to do so is a terrible idea. It's a cop, he could have written a manifesto detailing every aspect of what he planned to do and not get pinned for 1st degree. I don't know the law in the state specifically (the ambiguity/inconsistency is part of the scam), but is that why we skipped 2nd degree? Because choking an unresponsive person without a pulse seems pretty damn intentional to me. I get the skepticism of the system, but I'm pretty sure that a written manifesto would be a little bit too much for even a cop to escape. He wasn't going to even get arrested without the tape AND the protests, so lol.
Minnesota's 3rd degree murder: ..."without intent to effect the death of any person, caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life"...
2nd degree murder: "Any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned in advance."
The incident clearly meets 3rd degree murder. To me, this seems like a slam dunk case if you go for that. My understanding (experienced lawyers, step in if needed) is that to meet 2nd degree, we would need evidence that Chauvin basically rolled up and said, "Hmm, I'm gonna kill this guy right here". While you might be able to convince a jury of this, there just doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to have any real confidence in this charge (unless new evidence pops up), and my understanding is that it's the prosecutor's responsibility to strike a balance between the most severe charges that they can get and the best chance that they have at a successful conviction.
Honestly, I think that you wouldn't be able to get a murder charge at all in a lot of states, and if this didn't happen in a state with 3rd degree murder on the books, we may have had to settle for a manslaughter charge.
I mean that the system doesn't even have justice as an option is part of the fruitlessness of searching for it there. Even if he didn't plan on killing him on arrival as you describe, choking an unconscious man without a pulse is that "I'm going to kill this guy" moment clear as day to me and I would argue any reasonable person.
Regardless, I think it's pretty pointless disagreement in the long run. This is about so much more than any one person or event at this point. Missing the forest for the trees is the expression that comes to mind.
|
If there’s anything justifying these protests, it’s these cops all around America right now swinging their dicks to assert their authority on everyone no matter if they’re guilty or innocent.
|
On May 31 2020 23:30 Xxio wrote:
I hope Antifa is soon declared a domestic terrorist organization.
Hahahah Trump just tweeted he wants to do that
|
Because clearly THAT is the main important thing to take out of all of this. Not something about police reform. Not something about making the country better. No, BAN THE LEFTIST TERRORISTS!
|
National Guard called into Chicago on a limited basis as of now. Will keep an eye as it develops. 9PM curfew is in effect as well.
|
US: Who are those people?
Observer: Antifascists
US: So my enemy then
|
I can't understand what's going in to the decision making in these incidents. Why would you shoot at identified journalists with cameras on you? Is it fear and adrenaline? Do they not have any protocols and training?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
