|
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 April 18 2021 08:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 21:04 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 17 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 08:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If the previous debate with BJ has shown anything, he is pro killing if an officer is involved. Debating it any further is a waste of time for all involved. The cop is always in the right and the person who died did something to justify their death. I think it would be best to move along from discussing this topic with them. What is "pro killing" haha On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:
when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake.
On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:
Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. I'm going to have to redact some of the posts I made in this thread about these shootings being mistakes and wrong decisions because it is seriously contradicting my "pro killing" stance. Blackjack, you are not very clear in your posts and often include contradictory statements, so this makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. From what I gather, you think the cop shouldn't have made the mistake, but because there are 'mitigating' circumstances, i.e. someone resisted arrest or the kid had a gun; we should be lenient on the cop and not hold them to a higher standard. Is that the gist of it? Personally I don't think my posts contradictory. I think the issue is a problem that is endemic with arguing on the internet - you're trying to converse with people that are complete strangers and the delayed back-and-forth times makes it difficult to ask for clarification into the nuances of the person's views. As a result arguing on the internet seems to be a lot more about reading a person's words and then attempting to infer what "group" they belong to and then arguing more broadly against the beliefs of that group instead of what the person actually said. Granted, I tend to have a lot of atypical views that don't fit into any mold which maybe makes it my fault but I'm not going to alter my views just to get less grief arguing on the internet. I'll give you an example but I will put it in spoilers because it is extremely off-topic. + Show Spoiler +One atypical view I have is that I believe life begins at conception, but I'm also pro-choice. If I post on the internet why I think life begins at conception the reader of that post thinks "Oh this guy thinks life begins at conception, he must be a pro-lifer, let me hit him with these arguments for why being pro-life is wrong." Then I say "I never said I was pro-life yadda yadda" Then they say "well your posts aren't clear and are self contradictory." But the reality is there is nothing contradictory or unclear there. The contradiction is with what I actually posted vs what the reader inferred I also believed because of what I posted. Just because it doesn't fit the normal mold in our society doesn't make it contradictory. Similarly if I post a view as to why I think it's unreasonable to demand cops to make superhuman reactions with 100% accuracy the response is just usually "Oh so you think cops should be allowed to murder people in the street like dogs" or "So you think cops should be judge, jury, and executioner." etc. If people want to infer that I'm a racist pro-killing bootlicker or whatever, I really couldn't care less. I've always been a vocal proponent of police demilitarization, police reform, increased training, etc. I was on the streets of Oakland after George Floyd was killed. I don't need to justify my anti-police wokeness to anyone.
Thank you. This helps with some understanding of your posts. Still, at the same time, it's better to re-read what you type to make sure you're coming across as clearly as you can because as you stated, it's the internet. All we have is inferring what the poster wrote if they're not there to clean it up in real time. I was a little harsh towards you in regards to the police thing, but can you understand and see where that confusion and harshness stims from? I'm a Black male. Most people who post here know that. In that regard, there are a few topics I might be more highly charged about. Seeing officers kill people and then others expecting us to give them the benefit of the doubt just doesn't work for me. We expect them to behave and conduct themselves to a higher standard. Betraying that expectation and implied trust should be rightfully met with derision.
TL:DR Try to make your posts as clear as possible and I'll refrain from assuming you mean the worst possible thing.
|
On April 18 2021 08:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2021 21:04 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 17 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 08:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If the previous debate with BJ has shown anything, he is pro killing if an officer is involved. Debating it any further is a waste of time for all involved. The cop is always in the right and the person who died did something to justify their death. I think it would be best to move along from discussing this topic with them. What is "pro killing" haha On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:
when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake.
On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:
Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. I'm going to have to redact some of the posts I made in this thread about these shootings being mistakes and wrong decisions because it is seriously contradicting my "pro killing" stance. Blackjack, you are not very clear in your posts and often include contradictory statements, so this makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. From what I gather, you think the cop shouldn't have made the mistake, but because there are 'mitigating' circumstances, i.e. someone resisted arrest or the kid had a gun; we should be lenient on the cop and not hold them to a higher standard. Is that the gist of it? Personally I don't think my posts contradictory. I think the issue is a problem that is endemic with arguing on the internet - you're trying to converse with people that are complete strangers and the delayed back-and-forth times makes it difficult to ask for clarification into the nuances of the person's views. As a result arguing on the internet seems to be a lot more about reading a person's words and then attempting to infer what "group" they belong to and then arguing more broadly against the beliefs of that group instead of what the person actually said. Granted, I tend to have a lot of atypical views that don't fit into any mold which maybe makes it my fault but I'm not going to alter my views just to get less grief arguing on the internet. I'll give you an example but I will put it in spoilers because it is extremely off-topic. + Show Spoiler +One atypical view I have is that I believe life begins at conception, but I'm also pro-choice. If I post on the internet why I think life begins at conception the reader of that post thinks "Oh this guy thinks life begins at conception, he must be a pro-lifer, let me hit him with these arguments for why being pro-life is wrong." Then I say "I never said I was pro-life yadda yadda" Then they say "well your posts aren't clear and are self contradictory." But the reality is there is nothing contradictory or unclear there. The contradiction is with what I actually posted vs what the reader inferred I also believed because of what I posted. Just because it doesn't fit the normal mold in our society doesn't make it contradictory. Similarly if I post a view as to why I think it's unreasonable to demand cops to make superhuman reactions with 100% accuracy the response is just usually "Oh so you think cops should be allowed to murder people in the street like dogs" or "So you think cops should be judge, jury, and executioner." etc. If people want to infer that I'm a racist pro-killing bootlicker or whatever, I really couldn't care less. I've always been a vocal proponent of police demilitarization, police reform, increased training, etc. I was on the streets of Oakland after George Floyd was killed. I don't need to justify my anti-police wokeness to anyone.
Thanks for this, for a while there I wasn't sure if you were trolling.
Saying something like 'I believe cops killing unarmed suspects is wrong' but in the same post say 'this particular cop, which killed an unarmed suspect, should be given a pass because the victim did something to deserve it' is contradictory to many of us.
As a European, I'm not quite as versed as other posters in all the groups one might belong to, as you put it. To me, it's incomprehensible that cops are not held to a higher standard in the US, but I think part of the issue here is fighting against decades of cop glorification in popular culture. The 'by golly he's a loose cannon but he gets the job done' kind of thing.
|
Ahhhh, so I thought I was in the football thread. My apologies.
|
Chauvin trial closing arguments today.
I will be blown away if they don't convict on manslaughter.
The murder charges are the big question mark.
|
On April 18 2021 17:31 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2021 08:20 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 21:04 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 17 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 08:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If the previous debate with BJ has shown anything, he is pro killing if an officer is involved. Debating it any further is a waste of time for all involved. The cop is always in the right and the person who died did something to justify their death. I think it would be best to move along from discussing this topic with them. What is "pro killing" haha On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:
when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake.
On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:
Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. I'm going to have to redact some of the posts I made in this thread about these shootings being mistakes and wrong decisions because it is seriously contradicting my "pro killing" stance. Blackjack, you are not very clear in your posts and often include contradictory statements, so this makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. From what I gather, you think the cop shouldn't have made the mistake, but because there are 'mitigating' circumstances, i.e. someone resisted arrest or the kid had a gun; we should be lenient on the cop and not hold them to a higher standard. Is that the gist of it? Personally I don't think my posts contradictory. I think the issue is a problem that is endemic with arguing on the internet - you're trying to converse with people that are complete strangers and the delayed back-and-forth times makes it difficult to ask for clarification into the nuances of the person's views. As a result arguing on the internet seems to be a lot more about reading a person's words and then attempting to infer what "group" they belong to and then arguing more broadly against the beliefs of that group instead of what the person actually said. Granted, I tend to have a lot of atypical views that don't fit into any mold which maybe makes it my fault but I'm not going to alter my views just to get less grief arguing on the internet. I'll give you an example but I will put it in spoilers because it is extremely off-topic. + Show Spoiler +One atypical view I have is that I believe life begins at conception, but I'm also pro-choice. If I post on the internet why I think life begins at conception the reader of that post thinks "Oh this guy thinks life begins at conception, he must be a pro-lifer, let me hit him with these arguments for why being pro-life is wrong." Then I say "I never said I was pro-life yadda yadda" Then they say "well your posts aren't clear and are self contradictory." But the reality is there is nothing contradictory or unclear there. The contradiction is with what I actually posted vs what the reader inferred I also believed because of what I posted. Just because it doesn't fit the normal mold in our society doesn't make it contradictory. Similarly if I post a view as to why I think it's unreasonable to demand cops to make superhuman reactions with 100% accuracy the response is just usually "Oh so you think cops should be allowed to murder people in the street like dogs" or "So you think cops should be judge, jury, and executioner." etc. If people want to infer that I'm a racist pro-killing bootlicker or whatever, I really couldn't care less. I've always been a vocal proponent of police demilitarization, police reform, increased training, etc. I was on the streets of Oakland after George Floyd was killed. I don't need to justify my anti-police wokeness to anyone. Thanks for this, for a while there I wasn't sure if you were trolling. Saying something like 'I believe cops killing unarmed suspects is wrong' but in the same post say 'this particular cop, which killed an unarmed suspect, should be given a pass because the victim did something to deserve it' is contradictory to many of us. As a European, I'm not quite as versed as other posters in all the groups one might belong to, as you put it. To me, it's incomprehensible that cops are not held to a higher standard in the US, but I think part of the issue here is fighting against decades of cop glorification in popular culture. The 'by golly he's a loose cannon but he gets the job done' kind of thing.
On the deserve-part: As a western European I think there are situations where a cop shooting someone who's unarmed is justified. And I'm by no means a fan of our police, which is still 15x better than the US'.
Say they try to capture a convicted mass murderer and the latter is about to escape, the cop is likely to prevent a greater tragedy by shooting the convict. Or the more realistic scenario that someone is extremely aggressive towards a cop and might carry a weapon, which might be covered by self-defense depending of the case. Naturally the level of violence needs to be somewhat adequate, i.e. don't put 15 bullets into the guy who's already bleeding on the floor.
Naturally cases like these are very uncommon/theoretical and in general the US courts seem to be much much much too lenient on the police, with the result that the USA is a second world country when it comes to police killings, where it has similar numbers to countries like Iran and Brazil.
|
On April 20 2021 01:04 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2021 17:31 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 18 2021 08:20 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 21:04 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 17 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 08:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If the previous debate with BJ has shown anything, he is pro killing if an officer is involved. Debating it any further is a waste of time for all involved. The cop is always in the right and the person who died did something to justify their death. I think it would be best to move along from discussing this topic with them. What is "pro killing" haha On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:
when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake.
On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:
Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. I'm going to have to redact some of the posts I made in this thread about these shootings being mistakes and wrong decisions because it is seriously contradicting my "pro killing" stance. Blackjack, you are not very clear in your posts and often include contradictory statements, so this makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. From what I gather, you think the cop shouldn't have made the mistake, but because there are 'mitigating' circumstances, i.e. someone resisted arrest or the kid had a gun; we should be lenient on the cop and not hold them to a higher standard. Is that the gist of it? Personally I don't think my posts contradictory. I think the issue is a problem that is endemic with arguing on the internet - you're trying to converse with people that are complete strangers and the delayed back-and-forth times makes it difficult to ask for clarification into the nuances of the person's views. As a result arguing on the internet seems to be a lot more about reading a person's words and then attempting to infer what "group" they belong to and then arguing more broadly against the beliefs of that group instead of what the person actually said. Granted, I tend to have a lot of atypical views that don't fit into any mold which maybe makes it my fault but I'm not going to alter my views just to get less grief arguing on the internet. I'll give you an example but I will put it in spoilers because it is extremely off-topic. + Show Spoiler +One atypical view I have is that I believe life begins at conception, but I'm also pro-choice. If I post on the internet why I think life begins at conception the reader of that post thinks "Oh this guy thinks life begins at conception, he must be a pro-lifer, let me hit him with these arguments for why being pro-life is wrong." Then I say "I never said I was pro-life yadda yadda" Then they say "well your posts aren't clear and are self contradictory." But the reality is there is nothing contradictory or unclear there. The contradiction is with what I actually posted vs what the reader inferred I also believed because of what I posted. Just because it doesn't fit the normal mold in our society doesn't make it contradictory. Similarly if I post a view as to why I think it's unreasonable to demand cops to make superhuman reactions with 100% accuracy the response is just usually "Oh so you think cops should be allowed to murder people in the street like dogs" or "So you think cops should be judge, jury, and executioner." etc. If people want to infer that I'm a racist pro-killing bootlicker or whatever, I really couldn't care less. I've always been a vocal proponent of police demilitarization, police reform, increased training, etc. I was on the streets of Oakland after George Floyd was killed. I don't need to justify my anti-police wokeness to anyone. Thanks for this, for a while there I wasn't sure if you were trolling. Saying something like 'I believe cops killing unarmed suspects is wrong' but in the same post say 'this particular cop, which killed an unarmed suspect, should be given a pass because the victim did something to deserve it' is contradictory to many of us. As a European, I'm not quite as versed as other posters in all the groups one might belong to, as you put it. To me, it's incomprehensible that cops are not held to a higher standard in the US, but I think part of the issue here is fighting against decades of cop glorification in popular culture. The 'by golly he's a loose cannon but he gets the job done' kind of thing. On the deserve-part: As a western European I think there are situations where a cop shooting someone who's unarmed is justified. And I'm by no means a fan of our police, which is still 15x better than the US'. Say they try to capture a convicted mass murderer and the latter is about to escape, the cop is likely to prevent a greater tragedy by shooting the convict. Or the more realistic scenario that someone is extremely aggressive towards a cop and might carry a weapon, which might be covered by self-defense depending of the case. Naturally the level of violence needs to be somewhat adequate, i.e. don't put 15 bullets into the guy who's already bleeding on the floor. Naturally cases like these are very uncommon/theoretical and in general the US courts seem to be much much much too lenient on the police, with the result that the USA is a second world country when it comes to police killings, where it has similar numbers to countries like Iran and Brazil.
I was typing up a response to this and I find myself unable to write a clear statement without a hundred ifs in front of it. I simply think that shooting your gun as a police officer should be your absolute last resort and cops should be forced to demonstrate that they exhausted every other possibility every time they discharge their gun.
|
On April 20 2021 01:36 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2021 01:04 Archeon wrote:On April 18 2021 17:31 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 18 2021 08:20 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 21:04 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 17 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 08:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If the previous debate with BJ has shown anything, he is pro killing if an officer is involved. Debating it any further is a waste of time for all involved. The cop is always in the right and the person who died did something to justify their death. I think it would be best to move along from discussing this topic with them. What is "pro killing" haha On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:
when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake.
On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:
Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. I'm going to have to redact some of the posts I made in this thread about these shootings being mistakes and wrong decisions because it is seriously contradicting my "pro killing" stance. Blackjack, you are not very clear in your posts and often include contradictory statements, so this makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. From what I gather, you think the cop shouldn't have made the mistake, but because there are 'mitigating' circumstances, i.e. someone resisted arrest or the kid had a gun; we should be lenient on the cop and not hold them to a higher standard. Is that the gist of it? Personally I don't think my posts contradictory. I think the issue is a problem that is endemic with arguing on the internet - you're trying to converse with people that are complete strangers and the delayed back-and-forth times makes it difficult to ask for clarification into the nuances of the person's views. As a result arguing on the internet seems to be a lot more about reading a person's words and then attempting to infer what "group" they belong to and then arguing more broadly against the beliefs of that group instead of what the person actually said. Granted, I tend to have a lot of atypical views that don't fit into any mold which maybe makes it my fault but I'm not going to alter my views just to get less grief arguing on the internet. I'll give you an example but I will put it in spoilers because it is extremely off-topic. + Show Spoiler +One atypical view I have is that I believe life begins at conception, but I'm also pro-choice. If I post on the internet why I think life begins at conception the reader of that post thinks "Oh this guy thinks life begins at conception, he must be a pro-lifer, let me hit him with these arguments for why being pro-life is wrong." Then I say "I never said I was pro-life yadda yadda" Then they say "well your posts aren't clear and are self contradictory." But the reality is there is nothing contradictory or unclear there. The contradiction is with what I actually posted vs what the reader inferred I also believed because of what I posted. Just because it doesn't fit the normal mold in our society doesn't make it contradictory. Similarly if I post a view as to why I think it's unreasonable to demand cops to make superhuman reactions with 100% accuracy the response is just usually "Oh so you think cops should be allowed to murder people in the street like dogs" or "So you think cops should be judge, jury, and executioner." etc. If people want to infer that I'm a racist pro-killing bootlicker or whatever, I really couldn't care less. I've always been a vocal proponent of police demilitarization, police reform, increased training, etc. I was on the streets of Oakland after George Floyd was killed. I don't need to justify my anti-police wokeness to anyone. Thanks for this, for a while there I wasn't sure if you were trolling. Saying something like 'I believe cops killing unarmed suspects is wrong' but in the same post say 'this particular cop, which killed an unarmed suspect, should be given a pass because the victim did something to deserve it' is contradictory to many of us. As a European, I'm not quite as versed as other posters in all the groups one might belong to, as you put it. To me, it's incomprehensible that cops are not held to a higher standard in the US, but I think part of the issue here is fighting against decades of cop glorification in popular culture. The 'by golly he's a loose cannon but he gets the job done' kind of thing. On the deserve-part: As a western European I think there are situations where a cop shooting someone who's unarmed is justified. And I'm by no means a fan of our police, which is still 15x better than the US'. Say they try to capture a convicted mass murderer and the latter is about to escape, the cop is likely to prevent a greater tragedy by shooting the convict. Or the more realistic scenario that someone is extremely aggressive towards a cop and might carry a weapon, which might be covered by self-defense depending of the case. Naturally the level of violence needs to be somewhat adequate, i.e. don't put 15 bullets into the guy who's already bleeding on the floor. Naturally cases like these are very uncommon/theoretical and in general the US courts seem to be much much much too lenient on the police, with the result that the USA is a second world country when it comes to police killings, where it has similar numbers to countries like Iran and Brazil. I was typing up a response to this and I find myself unable to write a clear statement without a hundred ifs in front of it. I simply think that shooting your gun as a police officer should be your absolute last resort and cops should be forced to demonstrate that they exhausted every other possibility every time they discharge their gun.
I agree, but reality is often chaotic and hectic and especially in a country with more guns than people and heavy drug abuse I'm willing to give some lenience towards cops firing their gun in a situation where they aren't in control. Like if you miss a beat you might end up dead, it's a scary job on occasion. It's one of the major reasons why I think that the USA desperately needs different weapon laws, it just escalates a lot of situations.
Cops in the USA seem to be far too trigger happy for what I perceive as adequate though and apparently aren't trained to deescalate. That they all too often get away with atrocities makes it even worse, a harsh judgement might help making clear that they are supposed to pursue other options first.
|
I foresee... no good things to happen after the judgement call in the Chauvin case. closing argument is rather good, I just tuned in.
how was the prosecution's? just read a bit but the delivery is what sells it.
//ok that they used a bystander in the video who is more "reasonable" than a knee on Floyd's neck... was maybe not so "reasonable"
|
there will be a special place in hell for the defense I am sure. good lawyering nonetheless though.
|
On April 20 2021 01:04 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2021 17:31 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 18 2021 08:20 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 21:04 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 17 2021 20:36 BlackJack wrote:On April 17 2021 08:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If the previous debate with BJ has shown anything, he is pro killing if an officer is involved. Debating it any further is a waste of time for all involved. The cop is always in the right and the person who died did something to justify their death. I think it would be best to move along from discussing this topic with them. What is "pro killing" haha On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:
when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake.
On April 16 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:
Because it actually does appear the kid was trying to ditch the gun and surrender instead of pull the gun and blow the cop away. Given that fact the cop obviously made the wrong decision to shoot the kid. I'm going to have to redact some of the posts I made in this thread about these shootings being mistakes and wrong decisions because it is seriously contradicting my "pro killing" stance. Blackjack, you are not very clear in your posts and often include contradictory statements, so this makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. From what I gather, you think the cop shouldn't have made the mistake, but because there are 'mitigating' circumstances, i.e. someone resisted arrest or the kid had a gun; we should be lenient on the cop and not hold them to a higher standard. Is that the gist of it? Personally I don't think my posts contradictory. I think the issue is a problem that is endemic with arguing on the internet - you're trying to converse with people that are complete strangers and the delayed back-and-forth times makes it difficult to ask for clarification into the nuances of the person's views. As a result arguing on the internet seems to be a lot more about reading a person's words and then attempting to infer what "group" they belong to and then arguing more broadly against the beliefs of that group instead of what the person actually said. Granted, I tend to have a lot of atypical views that don't fit into any mold which maybe makes it my fault but I'm not going to alter my views just to get less grief arguing on the internet. I'll give you an example but I will put it in spoilers because it is extremely off-topic. + Show Spoiler +One atypical view I have is that I believe life begins at conception, but I'm also pro-choice. If I post on the internet why I think life begins at conception the reader of that post thinks "Oh this guy thinks life begins at conception, he must be a pro-lifer, let me hit him with these arguments for why being pro-life is wrong." Then I say "I never said I was pro-life yadda yadda" Then they say "well your posts aren't clear and are self contradictory." But the reality is there is nothing contradictory or unclear there. The contradiction is with what I actually posted vs what the reader inferred I also believed because of what I posted. Just because it doesn't fit the normal mold in our society doesn't make it contradictory. Similarly if I post a view as to why I think it's unreasonable to demand cops to make superhuman reactions with 100% accuracy the response is just usually "Oh so you think cops should be allowed to murder people in the street like dogs" or "So you think cops should be judge, jury, and executioner." etc. If people want to infer that I'm a racist pro-killing bootlicker or whatever, I really couldn't care less. I've always been a vocal proponent of police demilitarization, police reform, increased training, etc. I was on the streets of Oakland after George Floyd was killed. I don't need to justify my anti-police wokeness to anyone. Thanks for this, for a while there I wasn't sure if you were trolling. Saying something like 'I believe cops killing unarmed suspects is wrong' but in the same post say 'this particular cop, which killed an unarmed suspect, should be given a pass because the victim did something to deserve it' is contradictory to many of us. As a European, I'm not quite as versed as other posters in all the groups one might belong to, as you put it. To me, it's incomprehensible that cops are not held to a higher standard in the US, but I think part of the issue here is fighting against decades of cop glorification in popular culture. The 'by golly he's a loose cannon but he gets the job done' kind of thing. On the deserve-part: As a western European I think there are situations where a cop shooting someone who's unarmed is justified. And I'm by no means a fan of our police, which is still 15x better than the US'. Say they try to capture a convicted mass murderer and the latter is about to escape, the cop is likely to prevent a greater tragedy by shooting the convict. Or the more realistic scenario that someone is extremely aggressive towards a cop and might carry a weapon, which might be covered by self-defense depending of the case. Naturally the level of violence needs to be somewhat adequate, i.e. don't put 15 bullets into the guy who's already bleeding on the floor. Naturally cases like these are very uncommon/theoretical and in general the US courts seem to be much much much too lenient on the police, with the result that the USA is a second world country when it comes to police killings, where it has similar numbers to countries like Iran and Brazil.
When the US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq have stricter ROE (rules of engagement) in high-conflict warzones, you know something is wrong.
|
When do we get a Chauvin verdict?
|
On April 20 2021 11:45 Mohdoo wrote:
When do we get a Chauvin verdict?
When the jury decides? You'll see the national guard being rallied regardless once it's announced to be coming.
|
On April 20 2021 13:30 Sermokala wrote:When the jury decides? You'll see the national guard being rallied regardless once it's announced to be coming.
From everything I have read, the odds of a guilty verdict are slim to none.
|
On April 20 2021 13:31 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2021 13:30 Sermokala wrote:On April 20 2021 11:45 Mohdoo wrote:
When do we get a Chauvin verdict? When the jury decides? You'll see the national guard being rallied regardless once it's announced to be coming. From everything I have read, the odds of a guilty verdict are slim to none.
Honestly the consensus I've read looks pretty much split on this one with a slight legal tilt towards "the evidence is slightly short of enough for conviction" but a sense that the jury could easily and justifiably swing the other way. I'll admit I didn't watch the case so I can't really give my own thoughts, but it makes some sense.
Guess that makes it a good old fashioned mystery.
|
it's gonna be highly interesting for sure. also the jury is in for quite the long haul to reach a conclusion imho, based on who is in there. but let's see.
The jury of 12 people — six White, four Black and two multiracial — listened to nearly six hours of closing arguments Monday as the prosecution and defense ended the case just as they began three weeks ago, presenting vastly different views of the circumstances that led to Floyd’s Memorial Day death on a Minneapolis street.
and what the heck Maxine Waters. doing favors to no one here...
With Minneapolis on edge amid fears of fresh civil unrest related to the verdict, the court has said it will not announce a verdict late in the day, avoiding potential protests at night.
After the jury was sent to deliberate, Nelson called for a mistrial, citing intense media coverage, including comments over the weekend by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who during an appearance in the Twin Cities called on protesters to get “more confrontational” on issues of racism and policing if Chauvin is not found guilty.
Nelson argued that Waters’s comments could be viewed as an “intimidation” of the jury. Cahill said the comments could help Nelson’s cause, should he appeal the case later, but declined the mistrial.
WaPo
|
the notion that there could be not enough evidence to convict when we have video evidence of him being pinned for that long and the cops refusing to give medical attention after he stopped having a pulse is so utterly alien to me.
Just... how?
|
I still think he'll likely be found guilty on more then 1 charge, which is actually less then I thought he'd get when I first saw the video. Id say I watched a good portion of the trial both sides, and after the trial I feel less sure he's guilty then before, But tbh if I was on the jury and planning to continue living in MN, Id be pulling the guilty lever as self preservation at this point. Also @double, ya not sure what Maxine was thinking but jfc besides the horribleness of what she's promoting she also very likey has helped a future appeal and possible mistrial. Just insane.
|
On April 20 2021 19:02 Taelshin wrote:
I still think he'll likely be found guilty on more then 1 charge, which is actually less then I thought he'd get when I first saw the video. Id say I watched a good portion of the trial both sides, and after the trial I feel less sure he's guilty then before, But tbh if I was on the jury and planning to continue living in MN, Id be pulling the guilty lever as self preservation at this point. Also @double, ya not sure what Maxine was thinking but jfc besides the horribleness of what she's promoting she also very likey has helped a future appeal and possible mistrial. Just insane.
It is unfathomable to me how he can not be guilty of unnecessarily using excessive force with deadly consequences.
how warped must one's perception of justice be to feel that way, I wonder.
Not saying that the above is your position.
|
There is lots of things people find unfathomable but aren't actually unfathomable, Usually its down to a lack of research or too much emotion. FWIW I think mostly everyone is guilty of that. Like I said IMO he's going to get the lesser 2 charges, 3rd degree murder and second degree manslaughter.
It would have been interesting if we had done some polls prior to the trial and then after the trial to see if peoples positions moved at all.
Anyways it's in the jury's hands now lets hope how ever it goes there isn't too much violence.
|
what I found to be a well thought through and presented argument was that Chauvin acted according to the training manual. that was just really really good. most of us know that the training is insuffice and actually lackluster compared to... a lot of other countries let's say. but that Nelson guy turned it around and said he acted according to the training manual. and therefore very much along the line of the law.
which is true of course. Police has to or they are just thugs, from the law they derive their powers and it legitimizes actions they take when on duty - well the lawul ones at least which is exactly the point of contention. even though we here also know - especially POCs - that it produces undesirable results, to put it very nicely... but does a jury of random people?
jury composition makes it interesting though with the 6 people split white/minority. so... let's hope for the best and prepare for the worst I guess, especially if you are from around the area.
what I also found interesting were the images of the Police tanks already good to go if shit hits the fan. quite some symbolism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
