Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[Kutnupe14]

Now you are just being a drama queen.

No. I’m just fascinated how some folks want to change the rules when things don’t go their way.

 

[Keith_Indy]

At some point good people have to actually step up and stop letting bad people dominate the landscape.

correction, good people in these communities need to step up.

 

[femurphy77]

Now you are just being a drama queen.

Dog I gotta disagree with reservation; I've only been reading the thread in bits and pieces but several people in the "jury of your peers" portion of the discussion have stated that to be a true peer review it should have been 12 cops. Kut's example of 12 muslims letting off a muslim is the same thing with a differing demographic in place.

If you've (not you specifically, collectively) have ever had the honor of serving jury duty then you're well aware of the jury stacking that goes on all the time. I've been released because of a college education, because I was aware of people illegally using drugs, for having friends that were cops etc. Hell, I've even been released for where I worked. I've also remained seated in spite of having a college education, being aware of people illegally using drugs or having friends that were cops.

Do I believe it was an impartial jury? I have a hard time with it. Is it because of the demographics? Hell no! I truly don't believe that there was any way in hell that Chauvin was going to get a fair trial any where in the state much less right there in the same town. Honestly at this point I'm not sure he'll get one anywhere anymore.

The media, our "representatives", activists and many others have made this such an us or them issue that people are afraid to even consider the other side anymore lest they be seen as weak.

Ok I'll turn this back over to the pros!

 

[jamil]

No it's up to the lawyers on each side to pick which of your peers would be favorable to their side.

Did you not see the quote marks around “peers”? I don’t see that we said anything different.

 

[jamil]

Dog I gotta disagree with reservation; I've only been reading the thread in bits and pieces but several people in the "jury of your peers" portion of the discussion have stated that to be a true peer review it should have been 12 cops. Kut's example of 12 muslims letting off a muslim is the same thing with a differing demographic in place.

If you've (not you specifically, collectively) have ever had the honor of serving jury duty then you're well aware of the jury stacking that goes on all the time. I've been released because of a college education, because I was aware of people illegally using drugs, for having friends that were cops etc. Hell, I've even been released for where I worked. I've also remained seated in spite of having a college education, being aware of people illegally using drugs or having friends that were cops.

Do I believe it was an impartial jury? I have a hard time with it. Is it because of the demographics? Hell no! I truly don't believe that there was any way in hell that Chauvin was going to get a fair trial any where in the state much less right there in the same town. Honestly at this point I'm not sure he'll get one anywhere anymore.

The media, our "representatives", activists and many others have made this such an us or them issue that people are afraid to even consider the other side anymore lest they be seen as weak.

Ok I'll turn this back over to the pros!

Who said that the jury had to be all cops? I said it would have been a fairer jury if it had a couple of cops on it. I DON’T think it would have been a fairer jury if it had all cops.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Did you not see the quote marks around “peers”? I don’t see that we said anything different.

Okay.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Who said that the jury had to be all cops? I said it would have been a fairer jury if it had a couple of cops on it. I DON’T think it would have been a fairer jury if it had all cops.

Why would it be fairer?

 

[KG1]

For ****s sake. The Floyd family compares George Floyd to Emmett Till. First of all the killing of Emmett Till was undeniably motivated by race. No question about it. Also justice was never brought about in Till's case. There was no such proof that supported racism in Floyd's case. It was never even alleged during the trial that the incident was motivated by race.

George Floyd and Emmett Till families see parallels in loss

A Black Chicago teen’s lynching in 1955 galvanized the civil rights movement. A Black Minneapolis man’s killing by police last year propelled a worldwide call for racial justice and ending police brutality. The murders of Emmett Till and George Floyd were separated by more than six decades...

currently.att.yahoo.com

 

[Kutnupe14]

For ****s sake. The Floyd family compares George Floyd to Emmett Till. First of all the killing of Emmett Till was undeniably motivated by race. No question about it. Also justice was never brought about in Till's case. There was no such proof that supported racism in Floyd's case. It was never even alleged during the trial that the incident was motivated by race.

George Floyd and Emmett Till families see parallels in loss

A Black Chicago teen’s lynching in 1955 galvanized the civil rights movement. A Black Minneapolis man’s killing by police last year propelled a worldwide call for racial justice and ending police brutality. The murders of Emmett Till and George Floyd were separated by more than six decades...

currently.att.yahoo.com

Actually the title is poorly written. Nothing in the article draws parallels. The events are contrasted; with the only similarity drawn being that they called it a "lynching."

 

[foszoe]

You seem to be approaching this like a person who's looking to win an argument on the internet. You'll choose what you think are catchy quips to avoid having to deal with the actual subject. The problem isn't that white genocide is around the corner. It's that a growing number of people are beginning to mainstream the idea. That means it's getting to be okay to say it, where it was once (rightly) socially unacceptable. Just a few years ago that kind of talk would have resulted in social censure. But it appears to be acceptable to people on the left that other people on the left say it with impunity. That's a problem. If I'm to take you seriously, and not just some guy trying to score points on the internet, I'd like to see you acknowledge that.

A member stated that white genocide is around the corner. Kut is responding to that post. How is trying to make it about the idea becoming mainstream not shifting the conversation to a different subject.

 

[foszoe]

It just always seems that you are championing nuance and individuality where one side of the argument is concerned while apportioning collective guilt to the other

Sophist, heal thyself

Still waiting for an answer....what group do I apply collective guilt to and any evidence to support that claim....

It just always seems that you are championing nuance and individuality where one side of the argument is concerned while apportioning collective guilt to the other.

 

[foszoe]

Stupid people have always said stupid things and in a properly functioning society they get rebuffed for it. When people say bat **** crazy things and they're cheered on by segments of society, that leads to escalating acceptance.

There was a time and region that it was socially acceptable to talk about killing Blacks. It was not a properly functioning society then. But that kind of talk, and the actions which came after, became more fringe over the last several decades because it became socially unacceptable to say such things, and of course doing such things. Again, I'm not worried about being genocided. I'm worried the nation is ripping apart as the bat **** crazy talk moves into mainstream. A sitting US congress woman threatened violence if she didn't get the verdict she wanted. That's ****ing crazy.

And all you want to do is blow it off like it's not happening.

In regards to the social media angle.

Lets just start with some hypotheses I have garnered from reading INGO posts

1. The MSM is a powerful outlet reaching large swaths of the population.
2. The MSM has a bias against conservative values.
3. The MSM downplays black on black crime.
4. The MSM holds up white on black crime to a national audience.

Bases on those hypotheses, a conclusion could simply be that because white on black crime is more prominent the national voices are also more prominent and the narrative the general population hears is driven by the MSM.

Could the voices ebb and flow? Sure. Mainstreaming? I don't buy it. It's just like until satellites, counting hurricanes was more difficult.

I have yet to see anything happening now that I can't read about happening in the Black Power movements in the 60s and 70s....except now Twitter, FB, and social media lets everyone know about it in real time. That includes Tombs dramatic city burning photos.

 

[KG1]

Actually the title is poorly written. Nothing in the article draws parallels. The events are contrasted; with the only similarity drawn being that they called it a "lynching."

In what way was Emmitt Till the first George Floyd?

“People forgot about him,” Philonise Floyd said of Till, who was 14 when he was killed. “But he was the first George Floyd.”

 

[Kutnupe14]

In what way was Emmitt Till the first George Floyd?

I didn't say they were accurate in respect to calling both these lynchings

 

[Route 45]

No. I’m just fascinated how some folks want to change the rules when things don’t go their way.

Fascinated, indeed. Must be why you voted for court-packing, filibuster-ending, new-state-adding democrats.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Fascinated, indeed. Must be why you voted for court-packing, filibuster-ending, new-state-adding democrats.

Well, being like Big Red didn't suit me.

 

[KG1]

I didn't say they were accurate in respect to calling both these lynchings

I suspect that they could maybe be drawing a comparison on the grounds that they both sparked a movement. I would agree that there was defintely cause for doing so based on the racial component in Till's case.

Not so much in Floyd's. That's my point.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I suspect that they could maybe be drawing a comparison on the grounds that they both sparked a movement. I would agree that there was defintely cause for doing so based on the racial component in Till's case.

Not so much in Floyd's. That's my point.

Til sparked a movement in Chicago. In Mississippi, people knew better.

 

[KG1]

Til sparked a movement in Chicago. In Mississippi, people knew better.

The point is that any movement on behalf of Emmitt Till based on systemic racism at the time was most certainly justifiable.

Do you agree with activist protestors, Democrat politicians including the President and VP along with Democrat members of Congress when they hold up the Floyd incident as an example of "systemic racism" that warranted such a widespread violent outburst when there was no such apparent evidence to do so based on racism?

 

[Hoosier Cowboy]

I posted this in the other thread but I'll post it here too.