Is this just the beginning of rioting or will it subside?

[KJQ6945]

It doesn't matter who is the government. It matters that some police use bad tactics against citizens, which tends to put certain citizens in more harms way than is deserved. I've said before that bad encounters are proportional to the overall number of encounters. Reducing encounters reduces bad encounters. Society is harmed more overall by policies like stop and frisk. Eliminating that nonsense would reduce the bad encounters. That's not to say that it would have reduced this one. So I think revisiting qualified immunity is necessary. The problem in this latest scenario is that Chauvin was a repeat offender yet still on the force.

I’m in no way justifying what Derek Chauvin did here, but, “repeat offender”? He had 18 complaints in 18 years. He was disciplined over two of them. Both appear to be for what he said, not what he did.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...us/derek-chauvin-what-we-know-trnd/index.html

 

[KJQ6945]

From the CNN article,

According to Communities Against Police Brutality, a Minnesota nonprofit that created a database of complaints against officers in the state, Chauvin received oral reprimands for using a "demeaning tone," "derogatory language" and other language that merited discipline.

Which one should he be been fired for, the demeaning tone, or the derogatory language?

 

[jamil]

I’m in no way justifying what Derek Chauvin did here, but, “repeat offender”? He had 18 complaints in 18 years. He was disciplined over two of them. Both appear to be for what he said, not what he did.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...us/derek-chauvin-what-we-know-trnd/index.html

Like I said, that wouldn't affect this situation. Sometimes encounters with police are necessary. Cops got called for good reasons. His encounter with police was his own doing. But the guys who showed up for that call should not have been cops. And that's the part that's worth protesting, not the former.

 

[KJQ6945]

Like I said, that wouldn't affect this situation. Sometimes encounters with police are necessary. Cops got called for good reasons. His encounter with police was his own doing. But the guys who showed up for that call should not have been cops. And that's the part that's worth protesting, not the former.

You’re dodging the point.

You just stated, “The cops that showed up for that call shouldn’t have been cops.” My question to you is, why not? You are accepting the narrative that he’s a bad cop. You called him a repeat offender. He was reprimanded two times in 18 years for his language. Apparently he hurt somebody’s feelings. Should he have been fired for that?

Two of the four officers that were fired were still in training. What exactly did they do wrong prior to this incident that they shouldn’t have been there?

 

[KJQ6945]

Just because the anarchists repeat something over and over, doesn’t make it true. Or does it?


WTF?

 

[CampingJosh]

The rioting undermines the message though. The rioting is about deconstructing this society. It has a political goal. It exploits the anger and frustration. It's a bait and switch. Come protest an unjust death. When you get there, loot and destroy for political revolution, but in the name of George Floyd.

Yes, for some of the people, this is just an opportunity to work toward political goals that you and I both disagree with, and they are rioting for that purpose. But many people are not rioting but are instead marching in the streets, petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

Two different groups in the same place at the same time for different purposes. It's hard to distinguish the people at times, but we do it in the rest of life. When someone is shoplifting at Lowe's, we don't assume that everyone in the store is there for nefarious reasons.

I think that the rioting is every bit the outrage as the way the cops handled Floyd. The message won't be the message until the violence stops. No justice no peace is nonsense. No peace is just more injustice against their own. They're hurting everyone including themselves. And their preventing people like me, who supports their grievance against police, but then I have to say I can't support them while they're destroying society.

The Founding Fathers thought otherwise: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." That was a declaration of war.

These riots are not fundamentally different from the Boston Tea Party. A part of the populace feels as though the government favors businesses over them, and so engage in massive destruction of private property.

The U.S. has considered such actions to be a legitimate form of protest in the past, whether we like it now or not.

 

[BugI02]

It's the big difference. If you can't inherently see that, I don't know how to explain it.

He was empowered by:

• The city of Minneapolis, his employer
• The state of Minnesota, which grants officers the authority to make arrests outside their jurisdiction
• The United States, which grants qualified immunity to officers

Do you really think that police conduct their jobs without the authority of the government?



The other officers should have intervened. After all, they were witnessing an action that a prosecutor charged as murder.

And I can't let this slide: "If" Chauvin was abusing his authority? Is that really a question in your mind?



There are so many differences as to make the comparison meaningless. Floyd was unarmed and already restrained by handcuffs. Finicum reportedly went for a gun. Floyd spent a counterfeit $20 bill. Finicum committed multiple felonies while armed. Floyd told officers, "I can't breathe." Finicum told officers, "You're going to have to shoot me."

Finicum was killed in self-defense. Floyd was killed while already restrained. I don't like that either happened; I can understand why one of the two did.

If THE important distinction is being killed by 'men with the authority of the government', then they are essentially the same thing. The government put Finicum in the position he was in when killed, and it was completely unnecessary to take the action they did. The primary difference is the level of intent, Chauvin didn't have a roadblock and snipers in the woods

Unless you're saying that Finicum has some responsibility for ending up in the 'box canyon' he did, in which case so did Floyd. Personal responsibility is the missing element in the Floyd-as-martyr trope

 

[Alpo]

Don't create a strawman here Bug. It's unnecessary and we all know that Finicum wasn't cuffed on his stomach with a Feeb on his neck.

 

[JettaKnight]

If THE important distinction is being killed by 'men with the authority of the government', then they are essentially the same thing. The government put Finicum in the position he was in when killed, and it was completely unnecessary to take the action they did. The primary difference is the level of intent, Chauvin didn't have a roadblock and snipers in the woods

Unless you're saying that Finicum has some responsibility for ending up in the 'box canyon' he did, in which case so did Floyd. Personal responsibility is the missing element in the Floyd-as-martyr trope

The dude jumped out of his vehicle and seemingly reached for a gun... hell, I would have shot him. Plus, it was well known that he and his ilk were well armed and prepared to fight.



Am I missing something? I fail to see why you keep bringing him up.

 

[Alpo]

He's throwing jello at the wall to see if it sticks.

 

[BugI02]

It doesn't matter who is the government. It matters that some police use bad tactics against citizens, which tends to put certain citizens in more harms way than is deserved. I've said before that bad encounters are proportional to the overall number of encounters. Reducing encounters reduces bad encounters. Society is harmed more overall by policies like stop and frisk. Eliminating that nonsense would reduce the bad encounters. That's not to say that it would have reduced this one. So I think revisiting qualified immunity is necessary. The problem in this latest scenario is that Chauvin was a repeat offender yet still on the force.

That's the thing I wish to point out, it isn't a national or interstate issue. The people that should have intervened to police the police were city and state government. I will resist the attempt to push responsibility up to me or all white people or whatever. No federal agencies were involved, it is purely a local problem. George Floyd appears to have been a dirt ball scarcely worthy of my sympathy, he rolled the dice one time too many and this time they came up snake eyes. Even the 'he didn't deserve to die' is becoming pro forma. This isn't a tragedy, and wouldn't be remotely considered so if he had OD'd or his dealer had whacked him. A tragedy is when an uninvolved bystander is killed by stray rounds in a drive-by, a tragedy is a life with promise cut short through no fault of that person

I lack anything approaching all the facts in this matter. I certainly don't think Chauvin decided he would torture or kill this black man that night, I may be wrong. I think it is possible that police have heard 'I can't breathe' a lot (doesn't that trace back to the NYC cigarette seller?) and might consider it a way to try to get easier treatment and unserious - I don't know but I can imagine the possibility. I would like to hear the trial and see if Chauvin can explain himself in any way before I make a determination. There is this constant attempt to drag me to the water of 'George Floyd, hero' and make me drink and I resent the attempts. I'll make up my own mind in due time, and I'll make no excuses for rioters and looters while I'm waiting. One thing I don't understand is why Ahmaud Arbery is so much less of a cause célèbre. Is it because his case doesn't give reason to attack government in general and the police in particular? He is certainly much more likely to be an innocent victim

 

[CampingJosh]

If THE important distinction is being killed by 'men with the authority of the government', then they are essentially the same thing. The government put Finicum in the position he was in when killed, and it was completely unnecessary to take the action they did. The primary difference is the level of intent, Chauvin didn't have a roadblock and snipers in the woods

Unless you're saying that Finicum has some responsibility for ending up in the 'box canyon' he did, in which case so did Floyd. Personal responsibility is the missing element in the Floyd-as-martyr trope

You are trying to equate two things that are different. Not all sex is rape. Not all killing is murder.

Surely you are being disingenuous.

 

[BugI02]

Yes, for some of the people, this is just an opportunity to work toward political goals that you and I both disagree with, and they are rioting for that purpose. But many people are not rioting but are instead marching in the streets, petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

Two different groups in the same place at the same time for different purposes. It's hard to distinguish the people at times, but we do it in the rest of life. When someone is shoplifting at Lowe's, we don't assume that everyone in the store is there for nefarious reasons.



The Founding Fathers thought otherwise: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." That was a declaration of war.

[This is over broad and a misuse of the analogy. By your lights, Tim Mcveigh was following in the footsteps of the founders]

These riots are not fundamentally different from the Boston Tea Party. A part of the populace feels as though the government favors businesses over them, and so engage in massive destruction of private property.

[I still think you give short shrift to the Malheur standoff, which was about water rights and the government using it's power to run roughshod over local ranchers. And the people involved killed no one and destroyed little. You seem pretty judgemental in their case, is it because you don't approve of their 'crimes'? How is that different from those who disagree with you about the crimes embedded in the current protests? What elevates your judgement to the level you think it should occupy?]

The U.S. has considered such actions to be a legitimate form of protest in the past, whether we like it now or not.

Perhaps we no longer wish to acquiesce to that particular judgement

 

[JettaKnight]

[I still think you give short shrift to the Malheur standoff, which was about water rights and the government using it's power to run roughshod over local ranchers. And the people involved killed no one and destroyed little. You seem pretty judgemental in their case, is it because you don't approve of their 'crimes'? How is that different from those who disagree with you about the crimes embedded in the current protests? What elevates your judgement to the level you think it should occupy?]

It's so cute that you think that.

 

[BugI02]

Don't create a strawman here Bug. It's unnecessary and we all know that Finicum wasn't cuffed on his stomach with a Feeb on his neck.

It's not a straw man. If the overriding concern is the misuse of government authority, the only difference would seem to be that affirming the righteousness of the rioters is a more virtuous signal than according the Malheur group the status of petitioning the government for redress. It is a judgement call by CampingJosh, nothing more. George Floyd was not intentionally lured into an ambush that resulted in his death by sniper, nor was he some kind of innocent caught up in events beyond his control. Either both of us should have the leeway to make our own judgements of the particular events or neither should

 

[BugI02]

The dude jumped out of his vehicle and seemingly reached for a gun... hell, I would have shot him. Plus, it was well known that he and his ilk were well armed and prepared to fight.



Am I missing something? I fail to see why you keep bringing him up.

Because he was killed , arguably unnecessarily, by men 'acting with the authority of the government'. I'm hearing about how the Malheur folks 'committed crimes' although at the time I am not aware that they had been tried or convicted - even in absentia

I wish to make the point that the only real differences are that CampingJosh happens to feel that the George Floyd case is more egregious

 

[Thor]

This will not end until there are consequences for actions. I'm hoping our elected representatives and the government institutions they are responsible for will provide those consequences. I am not hopeful.

 

[BugI02]

If I'm still alive and mobile and he pre-deceases me, I will fly to Hawaii just to **** on Horiuchi's grave

 

[BugI02]

It's so cute that you think that.

Bless your heart

 

[CampingJosh]

Perhaps we no longer wish to acquiesce to that particular judgement

Tell the school systems that still teach it with cheer.

It's not a straw man. If the overriding concern is the misuse of government authority, the only difference would seem to be that affirming the righteousness of the rioters is a more virtuous signal than according the Malheur group the status of petitioning the government for redress. It is a judgement call by CampingJosh, nothing more. George Floyd was not intentionally lured into an ambush that resulted in his death by sniper, nor was he some kind of innocent caught up in events beyond his control. Either both of us should have the leeway to make our own judgements of the particular events or neither should

I haven't cheered for the rioters. I haven't cheered for the Bundy group. All I've said is that after a person has surrendered himself to arrest (rather than, say, trying to pull a gun), the police should not kill that person.