Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Penn wrote: »

It seems I did need to keep asking the question over and over, because what you're saying now is the complete opposite of your post I keep quoting.

But fair enough, no point discussing further.

These 2 posts of mine must have really annoyed you because you decided to answer them twice in the span of 30 minutes

Foxtrol wrote: »

Just yesterday you called BLM protesters 'racist thugs'. Would you label all catholic protesters in the north during troubles 'thugs' due to the actions of a minority who regularly turned protests violent? Some Bloody Sunday protesters were throwing rocks at police - were all those protesters also 'thugs'? I'd call those kind of statements disgusting.

Can you please give me the context in which I said that? I am happy to clarify.

I don't consider every person who protests against racial inequality as racist thugs. I do consider people who align themselves with BLM as racist thugs.

Also the BLM organisation and Catholic protesters are not comparable.

I would consider IRA sympathisers thugs.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

No need to ask the same question over and over, it's been answered pretty well already pages ago
if the crime rate is high in a specific ethnic group, then the killing by the police rate will be higher too

Why would the crime rate being high automatically lead to killings by police being higher?
Now, if you said that it leads to higher rates of that ethnic group in the prison population, or conviction rates for that group, well and good, there is a connection.
But, you believe that if an ethnic group commit more crime, they will automatically be killed more by police...........seems you agree with posters here you think you're arguing with!

Penn

Mic 1972 wrote: »

These 2 posts of mine must have really annoyed you because you decided to answer them twice in the span of 30 minutes

I was just hoping you'd have the honesty and integrity to admit you were wrong and were, intentionally or accidentally, misrepresenting statistics. I thought by giving you the chance we could have a proper discussion, but you clearly decided against that.

At least I tried.

Smee_Again

bubblypop wrote: »

Why would the crime rate being high automatically lead to killings by police being higher?
Now, if you said that it leads to higher rates of that ethnic group in the prison population, or conviction rates for that group, well and good, there is a connection.
But, you believe that if an ethnic group commit more crime, they will automatically be killed more by police...........seems you agree with posters here you think you're arguing with!

It’s almost like mic doesn’t realise cops aren’t supposed to kill people.

In fairness to him it appears some cops haven’t figured that out either.

bubblypop wrote: »

Why would the crime rate being high automatically lead to killings by police being higher?
Now, if you said that it leads to higher rates of that ethnic group in the prison population, or conviction rates for that group, well and good, there is a connection.
But, you believe that if an ethnic group commit more crime, they will automatically be killed more by police...........seems you agree with posters here you think you're arguing with!

More interaction with the police would surely increase the likelihood of lethal force being used as well as a higher rate of conviction/arrests.

I'm not sure I get where you are coming from

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

I do consider people who align themselves with BLM as racist thugs.

93% of BLM protests are peaceful. With no riots, no over-policing, nothing.

The fact you will label all of them racist thugs is absolutely disgusting and you just throw that point out despite the facts being spelled out to you all the time.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

More interaction with the police would surely increase the likelihood of lethal force being used as well as a higher rate of conviction/arrests.

I'm not sure I get where you are coming from

How does more interaction with police lead to more killings by police? I'm not sure how you think that makes sense?

bubblypop wrote: »

How does more interaction with police lead to more killings by police? I'm not sure how you think that makes sense?

If a certain demographic has more interaction with the police, then the likelihood of fatal interactions will be increased within that demographic.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a certain demographic has more interaction with the police, then the likelihood of fatal interactions will be increased within that demographic.

Which means you believe that police are more likely to kill someone who is in that demographic.
In this case black.
Just for interacting with police.

bubblypop wrote: »

Which means you believe that police are more likely to kill someone who is in that demographic.
In this case black.
Just for interacting with police.

That's not even close to what I am saying.

I'm saying that the more interactions with police, the greater the likelihood of one of those interactions will end up
escalating into a fatal consequence.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Actually, I posted that line only once, but it got replicated countless times today alone. I must have said something right

many people correcting you is not an indication that you said something right. Don't worry though, if you ever do get anything right I will be sure to let you know.

notobtuse

I can see him getting a new trial based on attorney incompetence. There was a biased juror that any competent lawyer would never have allowed sit on the jury. But the guy is dead broke and an attorney would have to take on the case pro bono, but I don’t think it will happen because no attorney would want all that negative publicity.

Tell me how

notobtuse wrote: »

I can see him getting a new trial based on attorney incompetence. There was a biased juror that any competent lawyer would never have allowed sit on the jury. But the guy is dead broke and an attorney would have to take on the case pro bono, but I don’t think it will happen because no attorney would want all that negative publicity.

Did you just change your mind while typing a single post?

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you please give me the context in which I said that? I am happy to clarify.

Do you throw out terms like that so often that you cannot keep track of what you posted yesterday?

Deleted User wrote: »

The gesture is linked to BLM. Regardless of what anyone else says. It's intrinsically linked because of the actions of racist thugs over the past year or so.

I don't consider every person who protests against racial inequality as racist thugs. I do consider people who align themselves with BLM as racist thugs.

Also the BLM organisation and Catholic protesters are not comparable.

I would consider IRA sympathisers thugs.

The BLM Movement and the Catholic community movement are very comparable, they even cover many of the same themes - including equality and policing.

There were elements a both BLM protests and Catholic community protests that got involved in violence, rioted, and attacked police yet you want to paint everyone that is associated with the BLM movement with the worst part of it while trying to carve out a tiny piece of the protesters in the north that were wrongdoers.

This is the exact hypocrisy I was talking about - it has stunk this place out for the last year.

notobtuse wrote: »

I can see him getting a new trial based on attorney incompetence. There was a biased juror that any competent lawyer would never have allowed sit on the jury. But the guy is dead broke and an attorney would have to take on the case pro bono, but I don’t think it will happen because no attorney would want all that negative publicity.

were all 12 jurors biased? He hasn't a hope in hell of getting a new trial because of ineffective representation of counsel. There are cases of attorneys being drunk during the trial, falling asleep during the trial, having an active mental illness during a trial and that still didn't count as ineffective assistance of counsel.

notobtuse wrote: »

I can see him getting a new trial based on attorney incompetence. There was a biased juror that any competent lawyer would never have allowed sit on the jury. But the guy is dead broke and an attorney would have to take on the case pro bono, but I don’t think it will happen because no attorney would want all that negative publicity.

That is just wrong, the Police Association/Union are paying all his legal fees

bewareofthedog

Faugheen wrote: »

93% of BLM protests are peaceful. With no riots, no over-policing, nothing.

The fact you will label all of them racist thugs is absolutely disgusting and you just throw that point out despite the facts being spelled out to you all the time.

99.999999999999999% of police interactions with the public are peaceful.

The fact that you say there's a widespread problem in dealing with minorities is absolutely disgusting.

notobtuse

Tell me how wrote: »

Did you just change your mind while typing a single post?

Nope. I can see him getting a new trial if he could get a good lawyer.

Penn wrote: »

I was just hoping you'd have the honesty and integrity to admit you were wrong and were, intentionally or accidentally, misrepresenting statistics. I thought by giving you the chance we could have a proper discussion, but you clearly decided against that.

At least I tried.

You have been answered many times over already, not just by me.
The stats are very clear as to who are more likely to be looking for trouble.
go looking for trouble, and you will find it

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

were all 12 jurors biased? He hasn't a hope in hell of getting a new trial because of ineffective representation of counsel. There are cases of attorneys being drunk during the trial, falling asleep during the trial, having an active mental illness during a trial and that still didn't count as ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees your right to effective counsel. Look up “Ineffective assistance of counsel.”

pjohnson

Why would a competent lawyer take a guaranteed loss in trying to save Chauvin :pac:

bewareofthedog wrote: »

99.999999999999999% of police interactions with the public are peaceful.

The fact that you say there's a widespread problem in dealing with minorities is absolutely disgusting.

So you're claiming the hundreds of thousands of black people that marched in the US over the last year are lying about their experiences and concerns?

I'd like to see that evidence.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

many people correcting you is not an indication that you said something right. Don't worry though, if you ever do get anything right I will be sure to let you know.

Many people agreeing with one another doesn't make a truth.
No matter how many times you can dissect the stats.

To avoid being killed by the cops is very easy, be honest and the cops won't come for you. if they do, collaborate and don't resist arrest

notobtuse wrote: »

The Sixth Amendment guarantees your right to effective counsel. Look up “Ineffective assistance of counsel.”

I did before I answered. They (The Supreme Court) set a very high bar for the defendant to prove their counsel was ineffective. Chauvins attorney doesn't even come close.

Foxtrol wrote: »

So you're claiming the hundreds of thousands of black people that marched in the US over the last year are lying about their experiences and concerns?

I'd like to see that evidence.

Did their experience with the police have anything to do with their behavior in the first place? Was there anything they could do to avoid getting in trouble with the cops?

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Many people agreeing with one another doesn't make a truth.
No matter how many times you can dissect the stats.

To avoid being killed by the cops is very easy, be honest and the cops won't come for you. if they do, collaborate and don't resist arrest

You were wrong with your original assertion. You didnt understand the difference between absolute stats and per capita stats. Be smart enough not to continually remind others of your error.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

You have been answered many times over already, not just by me.
The stats are very clear as to who are more likely to be looking for trouble.
go looking for trouble, and you will find it

Are you describing the police approach that stopped and searched non-white people at a much higher rate than white people that was later found to be unconstitutional?

Billy Mays

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Did their experience with the police have anything to do with their behavior in the first place? Was there anything they could do to avoid getting in trouble with the cops?

They could stop driving I suppose