George Floyd

[BoSoxGal]

This board is hinky lately, with the quote function as well as other things - I did not, for instance, put the above text in italics. The code for that isn’t even there. Bizarro.

[Econoline]

Hah, BSG! You pulled a Darren on me! That's not my quote but it is lib's! I know it was inadvertent but I hope others don't think I said anything so silly.

Scooter's post is almost right on target.

Yes I just caught that and fixed it. Sorry!

See, Darren? If she can do it, why can't you?



ETA: I see what you mean, BSG. In "Preview" my comment showed up in italics even though there was no code for that anywhere to be seen. I fixed it by putting a "[./.i.]" at the beginning of my comment to Darren.

[Jarlaxle]

Chauvin’s wife is filing for divorce - in this piece is a link to another feature about her from two years ago where she discusses her experience as a Hmong refugee. They’ve been married 10 years - sounds like she’s really horrified about the perspective on her husband that video revealed.

Good for her.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bringmethe ... ce-husband

Or she is (justifiably) afraid of being attacked.

[Jarlaxle]

Police unions and benevolent associations are more at fault than police leadership in many cases - they are often the obstacle to disciplining or firing bad cops. A much better balance must be struck between protecting cops and protecting citizens.

Step one: eliminate police unions.

Step two: eliminate the qualified immunity (and de facto total immunity) police have.

Step three: body cameras, every second of every minute of every hour of every shift. Should be a Federal mandate, with deactivating, disabling, or otherwise tampering with the camera a Federal crime with serious prison time.

Step four: civil awards for police misconduct should come from the pension fund.

Step five:police should have EXACTLY the same use-of-force rules as everyone else. If I would not be justified in shooting someone, neither should Barney Fife.

[Gob]

We do. Summary executions are not legal and police have specific guidelines/polices;etc. on when/how deadly force is used. However, when the "state" either is unable or unwilling to punish those who violate it, it becomes - in a way - "state sanctioned".

It's semantics.

So, the guys who killed George Floyd will not be punished?

[Gob]

Well Gob, that's my point re semantics. You're using sanction in a literal way whereas Big RR and BSG are using it in a moral way. Perhaps I'm not saying that quite rightly.

How about - you are thinking of specific prior authorization for an illegal act whereas they are speaking of ex post facto complicity in NOT punishing the individual performing the illegal act etc. That happens.

You might recognize it more easily if we say some white people think that native Americans deserve an apology from the government but other white people say "we didn't do it" so a state apology is not to be offered. Sometimes moral imperatives can outweigh the literal

So, was this state sanctioned murder happening under Obama?

[datsunaholic]

Chauvin’s wife is filing for divorce - in this piece is a link to another feature about her from two years ago where she discusses her experience as a Hmong refugee. They’ve been married 10 years - sounds like she’s really horrified about the perspective on her husband that video revealed.

Good for her.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bringmethe ... ce-husband

Or she is (justifiably) afraid of being attacked.

Or she's protecting her assets. One of the first things she did was to file to have the titles to BOTH the houses they jointly owned put in her name. The rest of the assets (bank accounts, cars) to be split equitably.

Because if the houses (which constitute a majority of their assets) are in her name and not his, they can't be seized for restitution. She is a successful real estate agent, she knows how that works.

[datsunaholic]

Well Gob, that's my point re semantics. You're using sanction in a literal way whereas Big RR and BSG are using it in a moral way. Perhaps I'm not saying that quite rightly.

How about - you are thinking of specific prior authorization for an illegal act whereas they are speaking of ex post facto complicity in NOT punishing the individual performing the illegal act etc. That happens.

You might recognize it more easily if we say some white people think that native Americans deserve an apology from the government but other white people say "we didn't do it" so a state apology is not to be offered. Sometimes moral imperatives can outweigh the literal

So, was this state sanctioned murder happening under Obama?

Yes, because it's systemic. It's been happening for the entirety of this country's existence. Police are rarely charged with murder (or assault, when the victim survives), and in the rare cases when they are they are rarely convicted.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What dats wrote. That.

[Gob]

Yes, because it's systemic. It's been happening for the entirety of this country's existence. Police are rarely charged with murder (or assault, when the victim survives), and in the rare cases when they are they are rarely convicted.

Then I pity you living under a flag where this happens. Why has no democrat president changed it?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Then I pity you living under a flag where this happens. Why has no democrat president changed it?

For the same reason the British prime minister doesn't tell Southend's council what color their wheelie-bins should be. Well, a similar reason. Assault and murder are a bit more nasty than purple wheelie-bins.

To oversimplify, outside of D.C. neither the President nor the Federal government nor the US legislature rule US cities and states. Each state is responsible for most criminal court cases and enforcement. For the national authority to intervene, there must be an offense against Federal law (which may or may not be an offense against State law). Much depends on who a thing is done to and where it was done.

https://www.federalcharges.com/can-murd ... ral-crime/

[Gob]

To oversimplify, outside of D.C. neither the President nor the Federal government nor the US legislature rule US cities and states. Each state is responsible for most criminal court cases and enforcement. For the national authority to intervene, there must be an offense against Federal law (which may or may not be an offense against State law). Much depends on who a thing is done to and where it was done.

https://www.federalcharges.com/can-murd ... ral-crime/

Jesus H Christopher. So why do Democratic States not change this ludicrous situation?

[BoSoxGal]

Yes, because it's systemic. It's been happening for the entirety of this country's existence. Police are rarely charged with murder (or assault, when the victim survives), and in the rare cases when they are they are rarely convicted.

Then I pity you living under a flag where this happens. Why has no democrat president changed it?

What a joke. Racism is very much alive and well in the UK, and extrajudicial killings by state agents happen there, too. There are people protesting there right now for the same reasons, not just about what’s happening here. Get off your fucking high horse.

Or post another article about Paki crimes in the UK while ignoring all the white crime.

[Long Run]

It's not a D/R thing. There are not good statistics about police committing crimes, but hundreds per year are arrested and lose their jobs for drug dealing, violence, theft, etc. So, police are not exempt from being arrested for crimes. The situations that get our attention are the violent actions, but almost all of them are gray area, even if the initial evidence might suggest otherwise. The current Floyd situation seems to be different in this regard as it is hard to imagine anything that happened before even remotely justifying the police action. But in the typical gray area, the police will get the benefit of the doubt if not with their department or the DA's office,then with the jury.

[BoSoxGal]

[BoSoxGal]

In Britain, protests over the death of George Floyd revive memories of others killed by police

[MajGenl.Meade]

So why do Democratic States not change this ludicrous situation?

What do you mean by "ludicrous situation"? If you are wondering why states don't change the Federal government it's because they cannot, any more than Southend Council can change Parliament.

What do you mean by "Democratic states"? States with majority Democrat legislatures? States with a Democrat governor?

Note that Minnesota has a Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party governor and lt.-governor. The House of Representatives is 56% DFL, 41% Republican and 3% New Republican Caucus. The Senate however is split 52% Republican and 48% DFL - which means passing laws is not the exclusive preserve of the DFL at all.

Minneapolis is DFL to the nth. And still, George Floyd happened. What is your suggestion for what the DFL leadership of Minneapolis should have done to stop Chauvin kneeling on the guy's neck for 8 minutes? Which specific bit of the "Democratic state" should have "changed" that?

[eddieq]

We do. Summary executions are not legal and police have specific guidelines/polices;etc. on when/how deadly force is used. However, when the "state" either is unable or unwilling to punish those who violate it, it becomes - in a way - "state sanctioned".

It's semantics.

So, the guys who killed George Floyd will not be punished?

It appears that, at least this time, there are genuine charges being leveled here. Murder 2, which I believe carries the burden to prove intent (lawyers help me out on this one). All too often, though, a big splash is made with grandiose charges leveled against the perpetrators (cops in this case) and its eventually pled down or dismissed. The world is watching this one and I hope we don’t get distracted by the next shiny thing (as tends to happen) and the murderers are appropriately punished for their crimes.

[ex-khobar Andy]

When the possibility of impeaching trump came closer and closer I was extremely worried for the very pragmatic reason that he would get off. There was never the remotest possibility that the Senate would vote him guilty. (Even if a few Rs crossed the line it needed a 2/3 vote to condemn.) My concern that he would then, inevitably, claim vindication and that he had been right all along with the witch hunt thing. And this vindication would flow from his every pore.

I am pleased that the four cops are being charged - and to be clear, all I have seen is the tape and AFAIC they are innocent until proven guilty. What is the real possibility that a random 12 Minnesotans will vote him guilty of second degree murder? I think it's low. So the pragmatic side of me (see above) fears the repercussions if (when) Chauvin gets it down to Manslaughter 3 or whatever and the others walk. That will make this couple of weeks seem like a flea bite.

Nevertheless we have to go through this.

[Gob]

What a joke. Racism is very much alive and well in the UK, and extrajudicial killings by state agents happen there, too.

Really? Extrajudicial killings by state agents in the UK? Evidence please!

There are people protesting there right now for the same reasons, not just about what’s happening here. Get off your fucking high horse.

No one has suggested that the UK is immune from racism, classic "whataboutism"

Or post another article about Paki crimes in the UK while ignoring all the white crime.

Yawn.. even more classic "whataboutism".