Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

iamstop wrote: »

If you believe that people from these far right nationalist groups don't purposely infiltrate the police specifically to abuse their power and find excuses to mess with and in some cases kill black people then you are sadly very naive.

Oooooooooh...........

I'll leave you be so.

Billy Mays wrote: »

The question is irrelevant to what I was talking about

it's relevant to the fact that you can be stopped by the cops and it's ok.
the cops are doing their job, they are not your enemy

BattleCorp wrote: »

My point though is that if you behave yourself appropriately, those traffic stops and other police interactions won't end up with you at the receiving end of police violence in about 99.999% of occasions.

It's quite simple in my mind. If George Floyd had obeyed the police officers and gotten into the car peacefully, Floyd wouldn't have died at the knee of Chauvin that day.

If Rayshard Brooks had obeyed the police officers and allowed himself to be arrested, he wouldn't have died at the hands of the police that day.

If Jacob Blake had obeyed the police officers and allowed himself to be arrested, he wouldn't be in a wheelchair today.

If you obey the law or at the very least obey the police when you are stopped or arrested, then that gives them very little reason to get violent with you.

I understand your point

I also understand why people would get the hump with the cops if they're continuously being pulled over due to the colour of their skin

Mic 1972 wrote: »

did your friend get shot by the police?

He gave an example of racial profiling and unfair targeting by the police(well documented) but you think it only matters if they're shot? You don't think that behaviour by the police is negative?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/inside-100-million-police-traffic-stops-new-evidence-racial-bias-n980556

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they don't even need to be far right nationalists. America is an institutionally racist country. they didnt even let them sit at the front of public buses until just before I was born. that cultural memory doesn't disappear overnight.

more conspiratorial stuff, what is going on with you guys?
have some faith in humanity

BattleCorp

Billy Mays wrote: »

I understand your point

I also understand why people would get the hump with the cops if they're continuously being pulled over due to the colour of their skin

And I agree with you too. But if that 'getting the hump' ends up with you getting confrontational with the cops, you are unlikely to be the winner in that situation.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they don't even need to be far right nationalists. America is an institutionally racist country. they didnt even let them sit at the front of public buses until just before I was born. that cultural memory doesn't disappear overnight.

Can you point me to a country which you think is more progressive? A country that didn't have questionable rules or laws in place?

Deleted User wrote: »

He gave an example of racial profiling and unfair targeting by the police(well documented) but you think it only matters if they're shot? You don't think that behaviour by the police is negative?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/inside-100-million-police-traffic-stops-new-evidence-racial-bias-n980556

I dont believe the cops are perfect, but i know i can be better than them if I get stopped and i want to go home safe

Mic 1972 wrote: »

it's relevant to the fact that you can be stopped by the cops and it's ok.
the cops are doing their job, they are not your enemy

If they've a valid reason to stop you they are

If they're stopping you cos you've a nice car and are black I disagree

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you point me to a country which you think is more progressive? A country that didn't have questionable rules or laws in place?

why? would that make the US any less institutionally racist?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why? would that make the US any less institutionally racist?

Not at all. I'm just wondering if you had an example of a country which didn't have a history of racism/questionable laws or a country which was more progressive.

Because if you didn't, it seems a little silly to make that declaration as if it was unique to America.

Billy Mays wrote: »

If they've a valid reason to stop you they are

If they're stopping you cos you've a nice car and are black I disagree

if they stop you and you are assuming they do because of the above reasons than you have a bias towards the cops

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all. I'm just wondering if you had an example of a country which didn't have a history of racism/questionable laws or a country which was more progressive.

Because if you didn't, it seems a little silly to make that declaration as if it was unique to America.

Good job on ignoring the point in an attempt to deflect. I expect nothing less from you.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Good job on ignoring the point in an attempt to deflect. I expect nothing less from you.

honestly you have a lot to answer yourself with posts like these, considering that white America voted for Obama twice. That's a long way from when black people couldn't sit on the bus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they don't even need to be far right nationalists. America is an institutionally racist country. they didnt even let them sit at the front of public buses until just before I was born. that cultural memory doesn't disappear overnight.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, you are purposely misrepresenting what I said.

If you act like a thug, you are a thug, regardless of what banner you are under.

If you align yourself with a disreputable organisation, you are disreputable.

Simple as that.

It's very possible to attend an anti racism rally and not be a thug.

It's very possible to attend a pro Catholic protest and not be a thug.

If you go to one and go to one under the banner of ira or BLM, then you're a tit.

But you are insistent on framing it that I am calling everyone a thug. It's absolutely clear I am not. You've also called me narrow minded and pathetic.

I'm going to not engage with you anymore because you are purposely trying to inflame the conversation and I'm not willing to rise to your bait.

But to bookmark the point, racism is never acceptable, but it's absolutely ok to oppose people's methods of getting their point across. (That includes the right of people like you opposing the boo)

Talk about me trying to inflame the conversation when you call 15 - 26 million people that were involved in BLM protests 'racist thugs' and then conflate BLM to the IRA - the latter an organisation that murdered close to two thousand people, many civilians.

You know what you're doing calling a group of black people 'thugs', it is a well known dog whistle. The continued willful ignorance between the BLM organisation and the BLM movement is no excuse for it.

For someone who claims to be against racism, the rage you have against the wider BLM movement and anything tangentially related to it is so mystifying that I struggle to believe the former.

BattleCorp wrote: »

And I agree with you too. But if that 'getting the hump' ends up with you getting confrontational with the cops, you are unlikely to be the winner in that situation.

You don't always need to get the hump for things to go south with American police. We've all seen plenty of videos where people are complying with the police and it's the cops who escelate the situation by acting like complete dickhe@ds

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they don't even need to be far right nationalists. America is an institutionally racist country. they didnt even let them sit at the front of public buses until just before I was born. that cultural memory doesn't disappear overnight.

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you point me to a country which you think is more progressive? A country that didn't have questionable rules or laws in place?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why? would that make the US any less institutionally racist?

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all. I'm just wondering if you had an example of a country which didn't have a history of racism/questionable laws or a country which was more progressive.

Because if you didn't, it seems a little silly to make that declaration as if it was unique to America.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Good job on ignoring the point in an attempt to deflect. I expect nothing less from you.

I'll leave this thread of responses here.

I didn't ignore. I questioned your posts. I didn't deflect.

I'll ignore you from now on though

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll leave this thread of responses here.

I didn't ignore. I questioned your posts. I didn't deflect.

I'll ignore you from now on though

good man.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they don't even need to be far right nationalists. America is an institutionally racist country. they didnt even let them sit at the front of public buses until just before I was born. that cultural memory doesn't disappear overnight.

Nor does the economic impact.

Posters like to post the crime rates by the black community but across the world poor communities have higher crime rates. This poverty can be directly connected to America's racist history, some very recent.

BattleCorp

Billy Mays wrote: »

You don't always need to get the hump for things to go south with American police. We've all seen plenty of videos where people are complying with the police and it's the cops who escelate the situation by acting like complete dickhe@ds

Yep, I'm not naive enough to say that there aren't any bad apples in the police force. But they aren't all bad and the vast majority of interactions don't end up like that.

My point still stands though. If you obey the law and don't give the police a reason to kick your ass, then you are very unlikely to be at the receiving end of police violence.

And if a cop assaults a member of the public for no reason, then they should face the full rigours of the law. I'm thinking particularly of the video clip where there is a black dude standing with his hands up and a cop jumps and kicks him in the back for no reason. The first seconds of this clip shows a cop assaulting someone. I'd be fine with a cop facing charges for something like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttMV19RPHAM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Talk about me trying to inflame the conversation when you call 15 - 26 million people that were involved in BLM protests 'racist thugs' and then conflate BLM to the IRA - the latter an organisation that murdered close to two thousand people, many civilians.

You know what you're doing calling a group of black people 'thugs', it is a well known dog whistle. The continued willful ignorance between the BLM organisation and the BLM movement is no excuse for it.

For someone who claims to be against racism, the rage you have against the wider BLM movement and anything tangentially related to it is so mystifying that I struggle to believe the former.

But you see, I didn't do that sweetheart.

BLM aren't a group of black people. I am not dog whistling at all.

I also EXPLICITLY said that people could go to anti racism rally's and not be thugs.

The only people I consider thugs (in this context) are people who act in a thuggish manner and people who "identify" as BLM activists.

I only conflated BLM and the ira because you tried to associate BLM supporters and Catholics. I countered by saying that BLM and ira supporters would be more accurate. (Not saying they are the same btw)

It was your shaky association which spawned that analogy. Not mine.

And your last paragraph where you imply I am a racist... That's despicable and incredibly insulting.

It's on brand for you but still, it's noted and I just want to highlight it so everyone can see your level of discourse.

Have the courage of your convictions to outwardly accuse me of something rather than hide behind snide comments.

And you had the cheek to call me disgusting...

notobtuse

Foxtrol wrote: »

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

The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association paid for his trial, but I don't think they would pay for an appeal.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

You don't really know that is the case.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

if they stop you and you are assuming they do because of the above reasons than you have a bias towards the cops

*Asks for example of black person being pulled over regularly by the cops*

*Example is given*

"They're the one with the bias against the cops"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Beasty

Should not need a reminder and there are a lot of reports to review

If you cannot interact in a civil manner do not post (or indeed do not be surprised if posting privileges are removed)

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yep, I'm not naive enough to say that there aren't any bad apples in the police force. But they aren't all bad and the vast majority of interactions don't end up like that.

My point still stands though. If you obey the law and don't give the police a reason to kick your ass, then you are very unlikely to be at the receiving end of police violence.

And if a cop assaults a member of the public for no reason, then they should face the full rigours of the law. I'm thinking particularly of the video clip where there is a black dude standing with his hands up and a cop jumps and kicks him in the back for no reason. The first seconds of this clip shows a cop assaulting someone. I'd be fine with a cop facing charges for something like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttMV19RPHAM

except they don't, do they? If the video of the floyd murder didn't exist Chauvin would not be in prison now. he would probably still be a cop.

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

except they don't, do they? If the video of the floyd murder didn't exist Chauvin would not be in prison now. he would probably still be a cop.

You don't know that for sure. There were lots of witnesses. Chauvin may well have been charged and convicted if there was no video footage.

Anyway, I'm tired and off to bed. Goodnight.

notobtuse wrote: »

You don't really know that is the case.

No, I do. The supreme court has been clear on what constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Not removing a juror that you claim was biased doesn't even come close to reaching that standard. do you even know that they had the ability to remove that juror? Do you even know that there was evidence of this bias during voir dire?

Deleted User wrote: »

But you see, I didn't do that sweetheart.

BLM aren't a group of black people. I am not dog whistling at all.

The BLM organisation leadership is nearly all black (I haven't seen any white people on it) and every protest I was involved in was led by non-white people, predominantly black. Calling them and those marching alongside them 'thugs' is an obvious dog whistle.

I also EXPLICITLY said that people could go to anti racism rally's and not be thugs.

The only people I consider thugs (in this context) are people who act in a thuggish manner and people who "identify" as BLM activists.

That is a lie. You repeatedly abused people who even attend BLM movement protests (below in the last 24 hours).

Deleted User wrote: »

If you go to one and go to one under the banner of ira or BLM, then you're a tit.

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.

If you want to abuse specific people then do so, if you're abusing all of those that marched under the BLM then you're abusing 15 - 26 million people.

I only conflated BLM and the ira because you tried to associate BLM supporters and Catholics. I countered by saying that BLM and ira supporters would be more accurate. (Not saying they are the same btw)

It was your shaky association which spawned that analogy. Not mine.

It was a desperate attempt to point score that was again offensive to 15 -26 million people that marched - aligning them with a terrorist group that has killed nearly 2000 people.

And your last paragraph where you imply I am a racist... That's despicable and incredibly insulting.

It's on brand for you but still, it's noted and I just want to highlight it so everyone can see your level of discourse.

Have the courage of your convictions to outwardly accuse me of something rather than hide behind snide comments.

And you had the cheek to call me disgusting...

Come on, you won't stop openly calling BLM and those associated with them racists and thugs (a group that I would identify myself as being included in having attended several protests in the last year) and now you're pearl clutching that I stated that I am struggling to reconcile your incredible aggressive polar opposite claims?