Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

cdeb wrote: »

You're doing it right now so far as I can see.

Link please.

Tell me how wrote: »

How many incidents are there where people are just called racist out of thin air? I'm sure it has happened, but how many become a talking point or are done so with no basis of any logic behind the accusation?

I just happen to think seeing an officer kneel on someone for 8 minutes as the life drained out of them with a complete lack of concern or empathy as to what was going as enough of a reason to ask the question as to what motivated him to behave in this way.

I end up in a lot of the same conversations on here as you do, people have plenty opportunity to accuse someone of being a racist should they just want to throw that out there, but it doesn't generally happen does it.

It happens ALL the time.

If anyone doesn't agree with a hot topic, if a "person of colour" is involved, they are very frequently called a racist.

You saw an officer kneel on a man for 8 mins and did you honestly come to the conclusion that he was doing it because he hates black people?

Or because maybe it was an erratic drug riddled large man who he didn't give a **** about?

Or was it because he was a **** person?

Or was it because he had bad training?

Maybe they had tried other options and with the increasing levels of irrational behaviour by Floyd they became less empathetic and more unconcerned about his welfare?

But the most common and most bizarrely rooted consensus is that he was racist?!?!?

Deleted User wrote: »

It happens ALL the time.

If anyone doesn't agree with a hot topic, if a "person of colour" is involved, they are very frequently called a racist.

You saw an officer kneel on a man for 8 mins and did you honestly come to the conclusion that he was doing it because he hates black people?

Or because maybe it was an erratic drug riddled large man who he didn't give a **** about?

Or was it because he was a **** person?

Or was it because he had bad training?

Maybe they had tried other options and with the increasing levels of irrational behaviour by Floyd they became less empathetic and more unconcerned about his welfare?

But the most common and most bizarrely rooted consensus is that he was racist?!?!?

Again. I haven't said that.

What I said was something led to him kneeling on him for 8 minutes, in the manner he did, and not thinking it was a problem.

If the conversation in general, in public or on here, had been about Chauvin having bad training or whatever, and that that needed to be looked at then the amount of conversation about this incident would have been much less.

But that isn't what has happened, for every person saying this was wrong and a sign of probably more deeply rooted problems than a single individual, there is another voice saying that it Chauvin should never have been arrested, charged or convicted.

Tell me how wrote: »

Again. I haven't said that.

What I said was something led to him kneeling on him for 8 minutes, in the manner he did, and not thinking it was a problem.

If the conversation in general, in public or on here, had been about Chauvin having bad training or whatever, and that that needed to be looked at then the amount of conversation about this incident would have been much less.

But that isn't what has happened, for every person saying this was wrong and a sign of probably more deeply rooted problems than a single individual, there is another voice saying that it Chauvin should never have been arrested, charged or convicted.

I'm a little confused.

Do you think chauvin is a racist murderer?

Tell me how wrote: »

'Don't ask, don't tell' is the message you are giving here. It's a message racists would love to see gain prominence.

No - I'm asking you for evidence that Chauvin was a racist and I'm open to hearing it, but you're not able to tell me any. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the message I'm giving here.

Tell me how wrote: »

And I repeat, I'm not throwing an accusation out there, I'm discussing an active current affairs topic.

In discussing an active current affairs topic, you are throwing out the accusation that Chauvin acted in a racist manner or was racially motivated.

As for the link you wanted, here you are saying it is "likely" that systemic racism played a role in Chauvin's killing of Floyd. Without any evidence - and you haven't explained how you'd differentiate between a racially motivated action and a non-racially motivated action without any evidence - that's a fairly unfair accusation.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a little confused.

Do you think chauvin is a racist murderer?

I think Chauvin is someone who murdered a man who he showed pretty much total ambivalence towards as to whether he lived or died.

Whether he did this because of his own racist views, because he had been trained in a police force which systematically treated black people in a prejudiced and/or excessive manner or for any other reason I don't know.

What I do know is that when someone murders someone else while working as a police officer who are hired to serve the public then all efforts should be taken to ensure that these types of incidents happen fewer and fewer times going forward.

Ruling out the first or second potential causes for what happened just because there is no clear and irrefutable evidence, will not lead to the opportunity to discover if such things are the root cause of the problem and why this is specifically relevant is because of the frequency of such incidents in which members of a particular race feel that they are not treated in an appropriate manner, often resulting in their death or injury.

Looking at this and the police force in which the officer operates should benefit all people, black white or any other colour if it leads to an improvement in deployment or training. Not looking at it only results in more people being treated unfairly because of the things outside their control.

Tell me how wrote: »

Whether he did this because of his own racist views, because he had been trained in a police force which systematically treated black people in a prejudiced and/or excessive manner or for any other reason I don't know.

That's a fairly big change from earlier saying it was "likely" he was racially motivated, don't you think?

I actually agree with much of what you had in that post, precisely because you left race out of much of it.

cdeb wrote: »

No - I'm asking you for evidence that Chauvin was a racist and I'm open to hearing it, but you're not able to tell me any. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the message I'm giving here.

In discussing an active current affairs topic, you are throwing out the accusation that Chauvin acted in a racist manner or was racially motivated.

As for the link you wanted, here you are saying it is "likely" that systemic racism played a role in Chauvin's killing of Floyd. Without any evidence - and you haven't explained how you'd differentiate between a racially motivated action and a non-racially motivated action without any evidence - that's a fairly unfair accusation.

Already gave evidence.

Tell me how wrote: »

You didn't hear of the Eric Garner incident?

1 - I'm not saying definitively yes, but I think it is possible/likely.
2 - The ambivalence with which Chauvin carried himself throughout the incident, hands in pockets, no concern that his actions were being recorded or watched by so many bystanders. 8 minutes is a long time. Something led to Derek Chauvin doing what he did for those 8 minutes and not thinking it was a problem.

(I'm aware his superiors testified that he behaved contrary to recommended dept practices but I can not look past his comfort with what he was doing for such a long time and wonder what led him to think that it was not a problem)

I know you don't agree with it, but you can't say I'm not forming my opinion on something.

But you are forming your opinion on nothing. I've already said that nothing in what you've highlighted there backs up your view. It could be borderline psychopath behaviour. It could be someone who hates junkies (or whatever petty crime Floyd was being accused of). It could be someone who's on a power high in their role over anyone, regardless of colour or anything else. It's circumstantial evidence at best; there's nothing in there to specifically indicate racial motivation.

cdeb wrote: »

But you are forming your opinion on nothing. I've already said that nothing in what you've highlighted there backs up your view. It could be borderline psychopath behaviour. It could be someone who hates junkies (or whatever petty crime Floyd was being accused of). It could be someone who's on a power high in their role over anyone, regardless of colour or anything else. It's circumstantial evidence at best; there's nothing in there to specifically indicate racial motivation.

This is it.

It's the assumption that he likely did it because he is racist which is a huge issue with me.

Any abuse directed towards someone who happens not to be white is often described as racist abuse by idiots clamouring to be seen as an "ally" (not specifically directed towards you tmh.)

This makes anything a white person does against a non white person an issue of race. Subsequently, anything that happens to a non white person is by virtue of their race.

It's dishonest.

Tell me how wrote: »

If the conversation in general, in public or on here, had been about Chauvin having bad training or whatever, and that that needed to be looked at then the amount of conversation about this incident would have been much less.

But that isn't what has happened, for every person saying this was wrong and a sign of probably more deeply rooted problems than a single individual, there is another voice saying that it Chauvin should never have been arrested, charged or convicted.

That's absolutely a strange way of looking at what happened in the aftermath.

There were tonnes of looting, deaths, fires, destruction of property, calls for defining of police, international outrage, the rise to prominence of the racist BLM movement etc.

It was assumed as a racist incident. A violent career criminal was made a martyr, white people were asked to apologise for their privilege, black people were told they were oppressed and were uncle Tom's if they didn't agree.

I've yet to see any evidence of racism in the death of George Floyd. Yet all this bollocks over the last couple of years has been ignited by his death.

Chauvin killed Floyd. He was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted. End of story really.

Biden having dinner with his family, murals on city streets, been lauded as some sort of activist rather than a petty criminal with a drug addiction.

It's all ****e.

Foxtrol

cdeb wrote: »

You're saying that Chauvin is a racist, or was racially motivated in his treatment of Floyd. Do you not think that's a major accusation? I do. It's a nasty thing to say about someone if you have no evidence of it.

And you pretty much have pulled that accusation from thin air. Your long post again contains no evidence at all to back up the suggestion that Floyd's death was racially motivated.

The problem I have with that is that if you focus on the wrong thing - and in this case, race appears to be the wrong thing, absent of any evidence to the contrary - you miss the real issues. In this case, that appears to be police training, which appears to be woeful in the US.

But how are you going to fix the real problem if you think the real problem is something else? You can't.

What are your feelings about the RUC and their historic treatment of Catholic communities in the north?

Did they do the wrong thing in dismantling it and creating the PSNI? Should they have just invested in more training?

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Well as I've said previously on a different thread, my daughter isn't white, which gives me an insight into the frequent racism she experiences on a near daily basis. I often have to confront other children, and parents of children who feel it ok to make fun of her.

I also have to confront parents and children who patronise her because of her ethnicity and make her feel like she should feel victimised.

It's a horrible balancing act and to be honest, she gets more upset about being seen as a victim than she does as when she actually "is" the victim of racism.

I am heavily involved in the PAC in our locality and am looking into other ways I can get involved. My local football team has an anti racist initiative and I am involved with them.

My focus is on my family and not the community at large if I am being brutally honest, but I do my level best to combat racim in all its forms.

Fair play on the efforts you make but I am really struggling to connect those activities with the vitriol you have against anti-racism campaigns.

You're entitled to your opinion but from my perspective after living in several of the most diverse cities in the US and listening to the experiences of non-white friends, colleagues, and family members you are ignorant about the systematic issues people face outside of your bubble. Given how you choose to continuously ignore evidence posed to you regarding systematic racism in thread after thread that ignorance at this stage is willful.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Fair play on the efforts you make but I am really struggling to connect those activities with the vitriol you have against anti-racism campaigns.

You're entitled to your opinion but from my perspective after living in several of the most diverse cities in the US and listening to the experiences of non-white friends, colleagues, and family members you are ignorant about the systematic issues people face outside of your bubble. Given how you choose to continuously ignore evidence posed to you regarding systematic racism in thread after thread that ignorance at this stage is willful.

What systematic issues do people face?

Foxtrol wrote: »

What are your feelings about the RUC and their historic treatment of Catholic communities in the north?

Did they do the wrong thing in dismantling it and creating the PSNI? Should they have just invested in more training?

What has that to do with anything?

Deleted User wrote: »

That's absolutely a strange way of looking at what happened in the aftermath.

There were tonnes of looting, deaths, fires, destruction of property, calls for defining of police, international outrage, the rise to prominence of the racist BLM movement etc.

It was assumed as a racist incident. A violent career criminal was made a martyr, white people were asked to apologise for their privilege, black people were told they were oppressed and were uncle Tom's if they didn't agree.

I've yet to see any evidence of racism in the death of George Floyd. Yet all this bollocks over the last couple of years has been ignited by his death.

Chauvin killed Floyd. He was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted. End of story really.

Biden having dinner with his family, murals on city streets, been lauded as some sort of activist rather than a petty criminal with a drug addiction.

It's all ****e.

Look, you've your own narrative on this, that's fine, we all have opinions but you're clearly misrepresenting some facts that have gone on both within this case and in relation to the topic in general.

Floyd's history is completely irrelevant in the context of his death unless you are advocating for police to be judge, jury and executioner when it comes to how they behave with known or expected criminals.
This incident was recorded start to finish and there is no evidence of Floyd either being violent, or Chauvin knowing him as such.

GF was another incident which contributed to BLM and 'all this bollocks' as you refer to it rather than the start finish and end to the reasons for all the events, incidents, conversations and debates around racism both in the US and elsewhere. Breonna Taylors name was mentioned nearly as much as GF last summer but given his death happened after hers, the growing response focused on that. Colin Kaepernick started his kneeling protest to protest police brutality a full 4 years before GF died.

On all sides of political debates, people make assumptions, frequently to fit their arguments. That's as old as time itself and laypeople do it in the same way if not as publicly.
It's happening right now with blanket statements on another thread on this platform stating that Islam and western society are incompatible with each other. We have a thread on this platform whos sole function is to decry immigration in one country and probably from which a single digit number of people, if any, live who will ever read or contribute to the thread. Would you class that as '****e' or is that reasonable and open debate about a necessary topic. I'm willing to bet there are many times more people living in the US who see the impact of policing on their communities in different ways who post here than there are people living in Sweden who do so and yet at times discussion on BLM, racism, policing topics is attempted to be shut down on here with people saying 'Why do people in Ireland care about what is happening in America'.

Also happening right now is the ongoing search for 150 missing people after a building, which an engineer had determined was at risk of collapsing went ahead and did that in Florida, a state whos Governor lauded the fact that he was pushing deregulation. If there was even a hint that muslim terrorists were involved in something that led to that building collapse there'd be a 500 post thread on here right now saying the last President was right in banning people from such countries coming to the US at the very least.

If people on this thread now who are now saying that they think Chauvins training was at fault for what happened, then surely they can point to posts from the wider BLM threads where they supported calls for refocus of police training and deployment while still insisting the Dept's aren't racist. I think I give people the benefit of the doubt on here but I tend to see a lot of the same posters say no to multiculturalsim, no to BLM protests, no to kneeling to highlight racism while also adamant in claiming there's no evidence of racism in various events and as such it cannot be considered as a factor. Many who invoke the name of a white person who died at the hands of the police as seemingly some sort of evidence that they are not biased rather than seeing it as further evidence that the police often behave both preemptively and prejudicially and frequently disproportionally.

So maybe when we see some people focus more on improving the groups that serve the society in which we live rather than just denounce racism, other people will be less inclined to feel that their racial group is being targeted unfairly.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What systematic issues do people face?

Just one example.

Research Shows Black Drivers More Likely to Be Stopped by Police

Faugheen

Tell me how wrote: »

Look, you've your own narrative on this, that's fine, we all have opinions but you're clearly misrepresenting some facts that have gone on both within this case and in relation to the topic in general.

Floyd's history is completely irrelevant in the context of his death unless you are advocating for police to be judge, jury and executioner when it comes to how they behave with known or expected criminals.
This incident was recorded start to finish and there is no evidence of Floyd either being violent, or Chauvin knowing him as such.

GF was another incident which contributed to BLM and 'all this bollocks' as you refer to it rather than the start finish and end to the reasons for all the events, incidents, conversations and debates around racism both in the US and elsewhere. Breonna Taylors name was mentioned nearly as much as GF last summer but given his death happened after hers, the growing response focused on that. Colin Kaepernick started his kneeling protest to protest police brutality a full 4 years before GF died.

On all sides of political debates, people make assumptions, frequently to fit their arguments. That's as old as time itself and laypeople do it in the same way if not as publicly.
It's happening right now with blanket statements on another thread on this platform stating that Islam and western society are incompatible with each other. We have a thread on this platform whos sole function is to decry immigration in one country and probably from which a single digit number of people, if any, live who will ever read or contribute to the thread. Would you class that as '****e' or is that reasonable and open debate about a necessary topic. I'm willing to bet there are many times more people living in the US who see the impact of policing on their communities in different ways who post here than there are people living in Sweden who do so and yet at times discussion on BLM, racism, policing topics is attempted to be shut down on here with people saying 'Why do people in Ireland care about what is happening in America'.

Also happening right now is the ongoing search for 150 missing people after a building, which an engineer had determined was at risk of collapsing went ahead and did that in Florida, a state whos Governor lauded the fact that he was pushing deregulation. If there was even a hint that muslim terrorists were involved in something that led to that building collapse there'd be a 500 post thread on here right now saying the last President was right in banning people from such countries coming to the US at the very least.

If people on this thread now who are now saying that they think Chauvins training was at fault for what happened, then surely they can point to posts from the wider BLM threads where they supported calls for refocus of police training and deployment while still insisting the Dept's aren't racist. I think I give people the benefit of the doubt on here but I tend to see a lot of the same posters say no to multiculturalsim, no to BLM protests, no to kneeling to highlight racism while also adamant in claiming there's no evidence of racism in various events and as such it cannot be considered as a factor. Many who invoke the name of a white person who died at the hands of the police as seemingly some sort of evidence that they are not biased rather than seeing it as further evidence that the police often behave both preemptively and prejudicially and frequently disproportionally.

So maybe when we see some people focus more on improving the groups that serve the society in which we live rather than just denounce racism, other people will be less inclined to feel that their racial group is being targeted unfairly.

Top drawer post here.

Unfortunately, these people aren't interested in reasonable debate as you have pointed out. They have their minds made up and will make up any old sh*te to suit it.

Faugheen wrote: »

Top drawer post here.

Unfortunately, these people aren't interested in reasonable debate as you have pointed out. They have their minds made up and will make up any old sh*te to suit it.

Top drawer to you.

A lot of waffle and excuses to me.

Who are "these people", you speak off?

Faugheen

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Top drawer to you.

A lot of waffle and excuses to me.

Who are "these people", you speak off?

And you have proven my point.

"A lot of waffle and excuses" - how? Debate it.

Oh that's right, you're actually not capable of doing that.

Faugheen wrote: »

And you have proven my point.

"A lot of waffle and excuses" - how? Debate it.

Oh that's right, you're actually not capable of doing that.

Debate you?

What are you going to do?

Tell me to **** off, then edit it to piss off.

Tell me I'm **** when I'm posting and then delete that?

It's you not able to debate.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Debate you?

What are you going to do?

Tell me to **** off, then edit it to piss off.

Tell me I'm **** when I'm posting and then delete that?

It's you not able to debate.

You said it.

Faugheen

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Debate you?

What are you going to do?

Tell me to **** off, then edit it to piss off.

Tell me I'm **** when I'm posting and then delete that?

It's you not able to debate.

You responded to me. Why don't you debate the points made by TMH?

Or is it just waffle and you're not capable of actually refuting anything he said?

Now, you've turned your attention to me to try and deflect away from it.

Debate, or get off the stage. I'm well able to debate and I have showcased that many times in my time here.

However, people who are wasting my time I will treat with the bad faith they're treating me. Much like you are doing so now.

Faugheen wrote: »

You responded to me. Why don't you debate the points made by TMH?

Or is it just waffle and you're not capable of actually refuting anything he said?

Now, you've turned your attention to me to try and deflect away from it.

Debate, or get off the stage. I'm well able to debate and I have showcased that many times in my time here.

However, people who are wasting my time I will treat with the bad faith they're treating me. Much like you are doing so now.

You think that THM's point, that an engineering failure. Is the same as a targeted Islam attack needs debating?

Snake Plisken

Way over the top sentance if you compare it the sentance handed out to Mohamed Noor who just reached out of his police car and shot dead Justine Diamond for no rational reason! He is currently serving 12.5 years! And that's what Chauvin should have got at the very most!

martingriff

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Way over the top sentance if you compare it the sentance handed out to Mohamed Noor who just reached out of his police car and shot dead Justine Diamond for no rational reason! He is currently serving 12.5 years! And that's what Chauvin should have got at the very most!

Was he not convicted of third degree charges only. Chauvin had both second degree and third degree charges. Could also be said his sentence was light

Snake Plisken

martingriff wrote: »

Was he not convicted of third degree charges only. Chauvin had both second degree and third degree charges. Could also be said his sentence was light

Yes 3rd degree murder and manslaughter and for shooting a woman dead for no reason it was a very light sentance! I still think Chauvin was given such a disprortionate sentance to stop further riots.