Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)
Comments
-
Many people seem to think the verdict is what is important in justice, it's actually the process that is the most imporant thing, that it is followed fairly and equally for all.0
-
Told not to look at the news, which we didn't, but information leaks through other sources, which is the point I'm making.
Is a sequestered Jury leak proof? Do they surrender their phones during the trial until a verdict is reached?
The point about Biden's timing stands.
Sorry, I thought your post said that you were told to ignore the phones.
Either way, in the Chauvin case, they had to surrender their phones before being sequestered.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/derek-chauvin-trial-what-happens-when-a-jury-is-sequesteredThe jury was sequestered on Monday by Judge Peter Cahill, who advised jurors to "plan for long and hope for short" when packing.
Sequestering a jury is where jurors are separated from other people in order to prevent outside influences from swaying a decision.
Throughout the Chauvin trial, jurors have been partially sequestered and supervised in the courthouse at all times. However, according to KARE 11, the jurors have been free to return home at night.
Now, the jury will remain in an undisclosed hotel room, where they will deliberate every day until the early evening. A sequestered jury typically deliberates after the close of normal business hours to finish its work faster.
The jurors will not be allowed to carry phones or any electronic devices and have been told to avoid all news about the case.
It's also worth pointing out that by the time it became public that Biden spoke with Floyd's family, the jury were in deliberations and very near a verdict at that point.
Biden's comments to the Floyd family did not influence the jury, because the jury could not have known about them, unless someone has actual evidence to the contrary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/us/biden-calls-george-floyd-family.html“I can only imagine the pressure and anxiety they are feeling, so I waited till the jury was sequestered,” Mr. Biden said of his conversation with the Floyd family during brief remarks in the Oval Office.
“They’re a good family, and they’re calling for peace and tranquillity, no matter what that verdict is. I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict.”
The evidence “is overwhelming in my view,” Mr. Biden said, adding that most of the conversation focused on “personal things.”
The president quickly defended his decision to weigh in on an unresolved trial, saying he thought it was appropriate to do so because all the evidence had been presented and the jury would not hear his remarks.
“I wouldn’t say that unless the jury was sequestered now,” he added, following a meeting with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.0 -
charlie_says wrote: »Didn't tell the truth one at least one of the jury selection questions which is under oath could be construded as perjury perhaps. It remains to be seen with the appeal. At this point it's really up to the judge to decide that based on the appeal arguments and *maybe* questioning and evidentiary inquiry into that juror, and *maybe* others.
I doubt it though, the mob has spoken and they get "their justice" and "their truth" thesedays in 'murica
What evidence is there that he didn't tell the truth? He answered the questions that were asked - he didn't protest in Minneapolis and he was open about his support for the BLM movement. The defense knew these facts and approved him as a juror.
The second half of this video shows even Fox News anchors understand this (the first half shows the prime time outrage merchants at Fox don't watch other Fox shows):
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1390135960701001728?s=200 -
No jury is leak proof, even if they are sequestered. Even locked in a hotel room, there are staff delivering meals, trips to the bathroom/ breaks that pass by a public screen with CNN etc, etc..the longer a deliberation goes on the more chances something will seep through and influence a decision.Sorry, I thought your post said that you were told to ignore the phones.
Either way, in the Chauvin case, they had to surrender their phones before being sequestered.
It's also worth pointing out that by the time it became public that Biden spoke with Floyd's family, the jury were in deliberations and very near a verdict at that point.
Biden's comments to the Floyd family did not influence the jury, because the jury could not have known about them, unless someone has actual evidence to the contrary.
However, whether they got through or not is besides the point. Biden and Maxine Waters made remarks that were ill advised at best.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html
In my experience, being ' very near a verdict ' doesn't mean anything, and is no excuse. Senior politicians know exactly what they are doing with the timing of their remarks.
Its just some can get away with it and others cant.0 -
No jury is leak proof, even if they are sequestered. Even locked in a hotel room, there are staff delivering meals, trips to the bathroom/ breaks that pass by a public screen with CNN etc, etc..the longer a deliberation goes on the more chances something will seep through and influence a decision.
However, whether they got through or not is besides the point. Biden and Maxine Waters made remarks that were ill advised at best.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html
In my experience, being ' very near a verdict ' doesn't mean anything, and is no excuse. Senior politicians know exactly what they are doing with the timing of their remarks.
Its just some can get away with it and others cant.
You're a few weeks late to this outrage. And nothing has changed about my response: here is Donald Trump getting on the phone to arguably the most watched news program in the country to, as the President of the United States, influence the jury pool of Minneapolis of Chauvin's undeniable guilt, in the summer of 2020:"The George Floyd case, nothing has to be said. I watched that," Mr. Trump said in a phone interview with Sean Hannity. "I couldn't really watch it for that long a period of time, it was over eight minutes. Who could watch that?"
"But it doesn't get any more obvious or it doesn't get any worse than that," he added.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-george-floyd-death-video/
It's even worse when you consider a couple weeks prior to these comments Trump indicated he had taken extraordinary steps to involve himself in the case, including tweeting about ordering the FBI to 'expedite' the investigation https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/trump-says-he-has-asked-doj-fbi-to-expedite-george-floyd-death-investigation and meeting personally with the Attorney General to discuss the particulars of the matter. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/28/trump-meets-with-attorney-general-to-discuss-george-floyd-killing.html - then he went on Hannity to blab about how "it doesn't get any more obvious or it doesn't get any worse than that."
I wonder how many jurors had to be turned down because they had pre-conceptions of the case funneled to them by POTUS 45? That's surely a bigger scandal than the tinfoil possibility the jury was leaked to, when we have every indication they weren't. Biden's comments were not considered or heard by the jury during deliberation, which is when the remarks were made.0 -
-
Your claims were incorrect. It’s that simple. The jury was sequestered without that phone. You were not.Those were the optics - whether they liked it or not.
The optics to the public are irrelevant to the decision of a sequestered jury.
If you really want to get into optics.
The trial itself, the evidence, the incriminating video of his actions. All carry much more weight than a comment by Biden.0 -
Told not to look at the news, which we didn't, but information leaks through other sources, which is the point I'm making.
Is a sequestered Jury leak proof? Do they surrender their phones during the trial until a verdict is reached?
The point about Biden's timing stands.
The fact youre asking that question demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about
Getting to the point of..the jury will be given Judges directions..as you know after allegedly serving on a jury yourself0 -
Your claims were incorrect. It’s that simple. The jury was sequestered without that phone. You were not.
The optics to the public are irrelevant to the decision of a sequestered jury.
They were only sequestered while deciding upon the verdict. Every other day they got to go home, hear about things that they weren't allowed to hear about in court, watch tv footage of the trial, hear about it from their family, see all the protesters and be totally aware that if they didn't return a guilty verdict, their city would have been razed to the ground.
Now I'm not saying they made a wrong decision, but it would be hard in those circumstances not to be influenced towards a guilty verdict.0 -
Advertisement
-
BattleCorp wrote: »They were only sequestered while deciding upon the verdict. Every other day they got to go home, hear about things that they weren't allowed to hear about in court, watch tv footage of the trial, hear about it from their family, see all the protesters and be totally aware that if they didn't return a guilty verdict, their city would have been razed to the ground.
Now I'm not saying they made a wrong decision, but it would be hard in those circumstances not to be influenced towards a guilty verdict.
Biden didn't speak until after they were sequestered. what he said had no effect on the outcome. what was most influential towards a guilty verdict was that all the evidence that led to that conclusion and miserable defence from chauvin. it would have been extremely difficult to return a not guilty verdict given the weight of evidence.0 -
Biden's comments to Floyd's family were about praying for the right verdict (but doesn't seem to have specified which verdict was the "right" verdict), and then after the verdict he called it murder and that justice was done, which is true at that point as that was the verdict.
I'd be willing to bet Biden chose his words carefully enough that, even if the defence did try to use it as part of an appeal or retrial, it wouldn't be deemed to have enough weight.
Biden did not specify but said the evidence is overwhelming. It is obvious what he meant. Hugely inappropriate, like Barack Obama's comments on the Trayvon Martin Case. These figures have a huge destabilising effect on the institutions of the US and our own which taken thousands of years to build.
These 'Fact checks' would make you think the drugs in his system are irrelevant but it is alone to cause reasonable doubt, which is really a low bar for a defence.It was disputed that it was fatal or 3x fatal.
Saying it’s “high” is meaningless. It’s unqualified.
No one claimed that. The meme claimed 3.7ng/ml could kill. Which is correct. It didn't say would kill always in all cases which is a very different thing. According to the Handbook of forensic toxicology for medical examiners 3 ng/ml in blood is in the lethal range in forensics.It was disputed that it was fatal or 3x fatal.
Saying it’s “high” is meaningless. It’s unqualified.
See Molina Handbook of forensic toxicology for medical examiners. CRC press, 2009.
No, according to the Handbook of forensic toxicology for medical examiners actually 10 ng/ml in blood is the upper limit of a therapeutic dose but that is a dishonest point to make as therapeutic vs lethal doses will overlap because humans vary enoughly and due to the large variability between antemortem doses and postmortem blood concentrations.FWIW I provided evidence that c.10ng/ml is in the law analgesic range.
Why do you say that? Strange point to make.But I’m not going to expect a reasonable thought out arguement tbh. He’s not exactly a paragon of enlightenment and reasoning.0 -
I’m aware when they were sequestered from.BattleCorp wrote: »They were only sequestered while deciding upon the verdict. Every other day they got to go home, hear about things that they weren't allowed to hear about in court, watch tv footage of the trial, ...
Biden’s comments were after they were sequestered. Taking about news during the trial is completely different.
The claims above were simply untrue.0 -
Reasonable doubt of what exactly?Yellow_Fern wrote: »l
These 'Fact checks' would make you think the drugs in his system are irrelevant but it is alone to cause reasonable doubt, which is really a low bar for a defence.
You can’t just wheel it out as a get out of jail card.
That’s incorrect. That the poster said was that 11ng would kill 95% of people.No one claimed that. The meme claimed 3.7ng/ml could kill. Which is correct. It didn't say would kill always in all cases which is a very different thing.
According to the Handbook of forensic toxicology for medical examiners 3 ng/ml in blood is in the lethal range in forensics.
That is completely untrue. The “evidence” he provided actually proved him wrong.
Can you provide evidence if 3.7ng/ml of fentanyl killing? I’ve asked for this a few time. As so far, everyone repeating this sound bite has been unable to.
Obviously, a cocktail of 3ng fentanyl, plus other opiates would not be evidence of this.
I don’t have a copy. Can you provide an extract or link?See Molina Handbook of forensic toxicology for medical examiners. CRC press, 2009.
That doesn’t disagree with anything I said, or the evidence I gave. Which said;No, according to the Handbook of forensic toxicology for medical examiners actually 10 ng/ml in blood is the upper limit of a therapeutic dose but that is a dishonest point to make as therapeutic vs lethal doses will overlap because humans vary enoughly and due to the large variability between antemortem doses and postmortem blood concentrations.
Up to 5-10ng was a therapeutic/analgesic dose, and 10-20ng was an anaesthetic dose.
There’s nothing dishonest about that, it’s a statement of fact.
And of course ranges will overlap. if 10ng is the upper limit for therapeutic doses. Are you honestly defending the claim that 11ng will kill 95% people?
Did you actually look at the paper referenced?
I thought Dark Horse with a comic podcast. Mixed up Weinstein with somebody else.Why do you say that? Strange point to make.
Still haven’t got around to it. Maybe tomorrow0 -
Reasonable doubt that Chauvin commited murder or manslaughter. The benefit of the doubt always goes to the defenceReasonable doubt of what exactly?
You can’t just wheel it out as a get out of jail card.Reasonable doubt of what exactly?
That’s incorrect. That the poster said was that 11ng would kill 95% of people.
That is completely untrue. The “evidence” he provided actually proved him wrong.
OK we crossed wires. I thought you were referring to the 'fact checks' that 'debunked'
the role of drugs.
That handbook is evidence. You can get it in libgen for free.Can you provide evidence if 3.7ng/ml of fentanyl killing? I’ve asked for this a few time. As so far, everyone repeating this sound bite has been unable to.
Obviously, a cocktail of 3ng fentanyl, plus other opiates would not be evidence of this.
I don’t have a copy. Can you provide an extract or link?
We can't even use that kind of language, for example 'was an Up to 5-10ng was a therapeutic/analgesic dose, and 10-20ng was an anaesthetic dose'. Concentrations in the blood is an inexact indicator of how much is consumed.Up to 5-10ng was a therapeutic/analgesic dose, and 10-20ng was an anaesthetic dose.
I was the first person to point that that the paper does provide evidence of the claim that 11ng will kill 95% people.And of course ranges will overlap. if 10ng is the upper limit for therapeutic doses. Are you honestly defending the claim that 11ng will kill 95% people?0 -
In order for reasonable doubt to be relevant, it has to provide some sort of doubt that the accused actions were criminal.Yellow_Fern wrote: »Reasonable doubt that Chauvin commited murder or manslaughter. The benefit of the doubt always goes to the defence
There is zero doubt that Chauvin's actions were criminal.
No. I was referring to the nonsense claims about the level of drugs.OK we crossed wires. I thought you were referring to the 'fact checks' that 'debunked' the role of drugs.That handbook is evidence. You can get it in libgen for free.
Thanks.
That states that therapeutic doses are typically 0.3-10ng/ml, but have been up to 40ng/ml. The lethal range is 3-210ng/ml.
The lower ranges are likely associated with poly-narcotic overdoes, or deaths in elderly patients with serious illnesses. So that in no way suggests that 11ng/ml is three times the lethal dose. It's firmly at the low end of the range and within the therapeutic range. As I said
It also reports that tolerances develop readily. So it up to 10ng is therapeutic in general population. 10-40+ is going to be routine in habitual drug users. 11ng is high, but that reference material ,plus all the evidence suggest it is not lethal here.
We aren't giving evidence or writing a report here. It's clear I'm referring to levels in blood not a consumed dose. When I say 10ng or 20ng; it's shorthand for levels in blood. I just don't feel like writing out per millilitre of blood every time.We can't even use that kind of language, for example 'was an Up to 5-10ng was a therapeutic/analgesic dose, and 10-20ng was an anaesthetic dose'. Concentrations in the blood is an inexact indicator of how much is consumed.
No you weren't. Unless you were posting from your alternate account.I was the first person to point that that the paper does provide evidence of the claim that 11ng will kill 95% people.
You mentioned about a lethal dose having to be the dose that kills everybody, bit 95 out of 100. Which is incorrect. If a lethal dose is quoted for a substance, it is typically given in the format of LD50. Which is the dose that will kill over 50% of people.
The person that mentioned 95% gave the name of the paper that he pull that info from.
It didn't say what he pretended it said. If anything it completely backed up the stance that it was likely not a fatal dose.0 -
Advertisement
-
Apologies for breaking in discussion but is this double jeopardy any serious issue even as a precedence?
Opinion: No, Derek Chauvin isn't being subjected to double jeopardy:
https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-no-derek-chauvin-isnt-223630308.html0 -
Apologies for breaking in discussion but is this double jeopardy any serious issue even as a precedence?
Opinion: No, Derek Chauvin isn't being subjected to double jeopardy:
https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-no-derek-chauvin-isnt-223630308.html
no, it isnt a serious issue. the supreme court has already ruled on it as the article says.0 -
I am not sure what you mean by zero doubt? Doubt amongst the jury? zero/little. Doubt amongst the public? loads. An asshole policeman might want to make a suspect suffer but highly implausible that they would want to cause serious harm. It is an obvious case of cognitive bias.In order for reasonable doubt to be relevant, it has to provide some sort of doubt that the accused actions were criminal.
There is zero doubt that Chauvin's actions were criminal.
He had several serious illnesses. I know its at the low range. Have been been saying that!That states that therapeutic doses are typically 0.3-10ng/ml, but have been up to 40ng/ml. The lethal range is 3-210ng/ml.
The lower ranges are likely associated with poly-narcotic overdoes, or deaths in elderly patients with serious illnesses. So that in no way suggests that 11ng/ml is three times the lethal dose. It's firmly at the low end of the range and within the therapeutic range. As I said
You made a pigs ear of it. The claim was that there was enough to kill three. It was a point I was discussing. The press "debunked" a meme making this claim. It is true that the claim is misleading (although it is not a lie) but the "factchecking" is even more dishonest and misleading.So that in no way suggests that 11ng/ml is three times the lethal dose. It's firmly at the low end of the range and within the therapeutic range. As I said
Yes I was. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116972231&postcount=2831
No you weren't. Unless you were posting from your alternate account.I was the first person to point that that the paper does provide evidence of the claim that 11ng will kill 95% people.
You mentioned about a lethal dose having to be the dose that kills everybody, bit 95 out of 100. Which is incorrect. If a lethal dose is quoted for a substance, it is typically given in the format of LD50. Which is the dose that will kill over 50% of people.0 -
Obviously with the anniversary of George Floyd’s killing, and on the back of the recent conviction of Derek Chauvin, there is still a lot of media attention in the news. But something is bothering me with how the case is being conflated with systemic racism in the eyes of the media. It seems somehow that Chauvin was convicted of racism and of a racist murder as far as the media are concerned. Is that true? To my knowledge he was convicted on three counts, first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter.
I can’t say I followed the actual court proceedings, but was a racial element shown to be the case or even explored? Did any evidence emerge to show that Chauvin actually committed a racial killing? Or that he was a racist? Was he a member of a neo-nazi group? Did they raid his house and unravel racist paraphernalia? I am not aware myself. These questions are important are they not?
The fact that Chauvin applied brutal and unnecessary force to Floyd, which resulted in Floyd’s killing and Chauvin’s conviction for murder seems completely like the correct decision. But was Floyd’s blackness shown to be a factor in this case? The media are presenting it so.0 -
jace_da_face wrote: »Obviously with the anniversary of George Floyd’s killing, and on the back of the recent conviction of Derek Chauvin, there is still a lot of media attention in the news. But something is bothering me with how the case is being conflated with systemic racism in the eyes of the media. It seems somehow that Chauvin was convicted of racism and of a racist murder as far as the media are concerned. Is that true? To my knowledge he was convicted on three counts, first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter.
I can’t say I followed the actual court proceedings, but was a racial element shown to be the case or even explored? Did any evidence emerge to show that Chauvin actually committed a racial killing? Or that he was a racist? Was he a member of a neo-nazi group? Did they raid his house and unravel racist paraphernalia? I am not aware myself. These questions are important are they not?
The fact that Chauvin applied brutal and unnecessary force to Floyd, which resulted in Floyd’s killing and Chauvin’s conviction for murder seems completely like the correct decision. But was Floyd’s blackness shown to be a factor in this case? The media are presenting it so.
This was a police brutality case, not a race case. Race was not a factor in the trial as there was no evidence that Chauvin did what he did because Floyd was black.
The media nowadays aren't really concerned with evidence or facts. Every single incident involving people who are different colours is painted as a racial incident, except when a black person kills a white person.0 -
Advertisement
-
jace_da_face wrote: »Obviously with the anniversary of George Floyd’s killing, and on the back of the recent conviction of Derek Chauvin, there is still a lot of media attention in the news. But something is bothering me with how the case is being conflated with systemic racism in the eyes of the media. It seems somehow that Chauvin was convicted of racism and of a racist murder as far as the media are concerned. Is that true? To my knowledge he was convicted on three counts, first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter.
I can’t say I followed the actual court proceedings, but was a racial element shown to be the case or even explored? Did any evidence emerge to show that Chauvin actually committed a racial killing? Or that he was a racist? Was he a member of a neo-nazi group? Did they raid his house and unravel racist paraphernalia? I am not aware myself. These questions are important are they not?
The fact that Chauvin applied brutal and unnecessary force to Floyd, which resulted in Floyd’s killing and Chauvin’s conviction for murder seems completely like the correct decision. But was Floyd’s blackness shown to be a factor in this case? The media are presenting it so.BattleCorp wrote: »This was a police brutality case, not a race case. Race was not a factor in the trial as there was no evidence that Chauvin did what he did because Floyd was black.
The media nowadays aren't really concerned with evidence or facts. Every single incident involving people who are different colours is painted as a racial incident, except when a black person kills a white person.
This isn't at all complicated and the people looking to absolve police from any sort of racial considerations know exactly what they are doing.
Their bar for something being racially motivated is that the accused clearly and loudly used a racial slur or was wearing clothing or had a tattoo with racist symbolisms on it (even though they'd probably debate that also).
This is also evident in how they can't understand the concept of systemic racism.
BLM has risen in to the public space because of the frequent occurrence of excessive and prejudicial force being used on black people by people specifically hired to defend the public often resulting in the deaths of those black people. The experience of people in black communities are frequently that they are treated differently and unfairly because of the colour of the skin.
Most sensible people look at the emergence of these stories, in large part solely because of the presence of more and more advanced phones and see the police behaviour as often inappropriate and excessive and they also wonder just how many cases of such behaviour occurred before video recording was so mobile.
Others look to absolve the police with the claim that there's no evidence of it being racially motivated.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »This isn't at all complicated and the people looking to absolve police from any sort of racial considerations know exactly what they are doing.
Their bar for something being racially motivated is that the accused clearly and loudly used a racial slur or was wearing clothing or had a tattoo with racist symbolisms on it (even though they'd probably debate that also).
This is also evident in how they can't understand the concept of systemic racism.
BLM has risen in to the public space because of the frequent occurrence of excessive and prejudicial force being used on black people by people specifically hired to defend the public often resulting in the deaths of those black people. The experience of people in black communities are frequently that they are treated differently and unfairly because of the colour of the skin.
Most sensible people look at the emergence of these stories, in large part solely because of the presence of more and more advanced phones and see the police behaviour as often inappropriate and excessive and they also wonder just how many cases of such behaviour occurred before video recording was so mobile.
Others look to absolve the police with the claim that there's no evidence of it being racially motivated.
And at the same time, the above could be used to ascribe racism as a factor in some situations where it doesn't exist. There needs to be slightly more evidence of an action being fuelled by racism than the colour of the person being assaulted is different from the colour of the aggressor.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »And at the same time, the above could be used to ascribe racism as a factor in some situations where it doesn't exist. There needs to be slightly more evidence of an action being fuelled by racism than the colour of the person being assaulted is different from the colour of the aggressor.
The accusation of racism didn't appear at any point in the trial.
Chauvin was tried for his actions and found guilty on the basis of those and those alone.
But when there is sustained and both documented and lived evidence of how people of different colour experience the police, should this reality just be ignored because no one used the N word?0 -
Tell me how wrote: »The accusation of racism didn't appear at any point in the trial.
Chauvin was tried for his actions and found guilty on the basis of those and those alone.
Because there was absolutely zero evidence that Chauvin's actions were borne out of racism.But when there is sustained and both documented and lived evidence of how people of different colour experience the police, should this reality just be ignored because no one used the N word?
It's a legal principle that each case has to be tried on its own merits. You can't attribute actions in a case to racism just because there is evidence of racism elsewhere. In other words, you can't tar everyone with the one brush.
By the way, I'm not denying that some members of the police force are racist, but it's incorrect to say that every negative interaction between black people and the police is because of racism.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »Because there was absolutely zero evidence that Chauvin's actions were borne out of racism.
It's a legal principle that each case has to be tried on its own merits. You can't attribute actions in a case to racism just because there is evidence of racism elsewhere. In other words, you can't tar everyone with the one brush.
By the way, I'm not denying that some members of the police force are racist, but it's incorrect to say that every negative interaction between black people and the police is because of racism.
Who said they were?0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Who said they were?
Does your statement below not suggest we should be looking for racism even if on the surface there's no evidence of it?But when there is sustained and both documented and lived evidence of how people of different colour experience the police, should this reality just be ignored because no one used the N word?
If you specifically go looking for racism every single time an incident occurs, you'll find it, whether it exists or not. Kind of like if you go looking for moving statues, you'll see moving statues eventually if you look long enough. They may not be moving, but you'll see them moving.
By the way, I'm still not denying that racism exists, I'm just saying it doesn't happen as often as some people seem to think.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »Does your statement below not suggest we should be looking for racism even if on the surface there's no evidence of it?
I asked the question about the documented and lived evidence of black people and how they frequently experience a more negative and often fatal outcome when engaging with police than people who are not black.
I was asking does society not explore this issue because there might be an absence of evidence of absolute racial motivation? I was not suggesting that every such interaction between the police and black people is or can be assumed to be racially motivated.
If a racist cop ten years ago trained a rookie to be excessively aggressive towards black people and told them that this is the correct procedure. They might not have said that Blacks deserved it, or anything overtly racist, but they were motivated by their racial hatred of black people. That rookie cop could then carry out procedures without being in any way racially motivated but in doing so is actually treating someone unfairly because of their race. It is things like this hypothetical scenario which are what systemic is (in part) and why it can be a problem without saying every cop is racist.
And given the experience of black people, who feel they are treated differently and unfairly, is it not fair for them to what to see this type of situation change?0 -
-
Tell me how wrote: »I asked the question about the documented and lived evidence of black people and how they frequently experience a more negative and often fatal outcome when engaging with police than people who are not black.
I was asking does society not explore this issue because there might be an absence of evidence of absolute racial motivation? I was not suggesting that every such interaction between the police and black people is or can be assumed to be racially motivated.
If a racist cop ten years ago trained a rookie to be excessively aggressive towards black people and told them that this is the correct procedure. They might not have said that Blacks deserved it, or anything overtly racist, but they were motivated by their racial hatred of black people. That rookie cop could then carry out procedures without being in any way racially motivated but in doing so is actually treating someone unfairly because of their race. It is things like this hypothetical scenario which are what systemic is (in part) and why it can be a problem without saying every cop is racist.
And given the experience of black people, who feel they are treated differently and unfairly, is it not fair for them to what to see this type of situation change?
Just because one feels they are treated differently and unfairly, doesn't mean they are. This is why above posters' points about the media making near every negative interaction between police, particularly when the policeman is white, and a black person onto a race issue is so dangerous.
Your hypothetical is quite a strange one. Is there any evidence that rookie police were trained to deal with black people specifically in a different manner than anyone else in the last 10 years?0 -
Someone wasn't thinking
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spain-stamps-post-office-equality-b1856101.html
New Spanish postage stamps to mark anniversary of George Floyd.
The black stamp is 70c and the pale stamp is €1.60.
Seems it was intentional, but over thought and ended up accidentally seen as racist.
“The darker the stamp, the less value it will have,” the state-owned company, called Correos, said in a news release announcing the launch. “Therefore, when making a shipment, it will be necessary to use more black stamps than white ones. That way, each letter and each shipment will become a reflection of the inequality created by racism.”0 -
Advertisement
-
Someone wasn't thinking
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spain-stamps-post-office-equality-b1856101.html
New Spanish postage stamps to mark anniversary of George Floyd.
The black stamp is 70c and the pale stamp is €1.60.
Seems it was intentional, but over thought and ended up accidentally seen as racist.
“The darker the stamp, the less value it will have,” the state-owned company, called Correos, said in a news release announcing the launch. “Therefore, when making a shipment, it will be necessary to use more black stamps than white ones. That way, each letter and each shipment will become a reflection of the inequality created by racism.”
I love how the pandering is ultimately turning against them.
Stay away from wokeness and be safe0 -
Someone wasn't thinking
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spain-stamps-post-office-equality-b1856101.html
New Spanish postage stamps to mark anniversary of George Floyd.
The black stamp is 70c and the pale stamp is €1.60.
Seems it was intentional, but over thought and ended up accidentally seen as racist.
“The darker the stamp, the less value it will have,” the state-owned company, called Correos, said in a news release announcing the launch. “Therefore, when making a shipment, it will be necessary to use more black stamps than white ones. That way, each letter and each shipment will become a reflection of the inequality created by racism.”
hahaha that's hilarious. This progressive ****e is the gift that keeps on giving. Biden needs to rid his party of it quicker rather than later.0 -
-
Just because one feels they are treated differently and unfairly, doesn't mean they are. This is why above posters' points about the media making near every negative interaction between police, particularly when the policeman is white, and a black person onto a race issue is so dangerous.
Your hypothetical is quite a strange one. Is there any evidence that rookie police were trained to deal with black people specifically in a different manner than anyone else in the last 10 years?
Every hypothetical is a strange one when your only metric for racial tendencies are cast iron proof through verbal expression or the use of symbols.
Why don't you come up with a hypothetical in which racist police (and we know there are at least some) behave in a racist manner without the use of words or symbols just so we can see if you are willing to believe it can happen.0 -
What makes you say the above is my only metric? The last time I interacted with you you called me a conservative, you seem to jump to conclusions aft too quick.Tell me how wrote: »Every hypothetical is a strange one when your only metric for racial tendencies are cast iron proof through verbal expression or the use of symbols.
Why don't you come up with a hypothetical in which racist police (and we know there are at least some) behave in a racist manner without the use of words or symbols just so we can see if you are willing to believe it can happen.
I do believe it can happen, but you were suggesting that police were being trained to be racist. That's a big leap to make with not even a hint of evidence.0 -
What makes you say the above is my only metric? The last time I interacted with you you called me a conservative, you seem to jump to conclusions aft too quick.
I do believe it can happen, but you were suggesting that police were being trained to be racist. That's a big leap to make with not even a hint of evidence.
I don't remember you at all.
I didn't suggest people were being trained to be racist, I gave a hypothetical, I literally said that in my post.
Are you going to answer the question?0 -
Tell me how wrote: »I don't remember you at all.
I didn't suggest people were being trained to be racist, I gave a hypothetical, I literally said that in my post.
Are you going to answer the question?
I know you don't remember me, that's the point. You jump to conclusions about people immediately if they don't agree with you.
Usually hypotheticals in these discussions need to be realistic. Yours isn't.
Hypothetically you could have a cop who constantly stops mainly black people simply to hassle them and piss them off because he's a racist. Hypothetically this cop could also be black, hypothetically he could even be from Mars. Hypothetically.0 -
I know you don't remember me, that's the point. You jump to conclusions about people immediately if they don't agree with you.
Usually hypotheticals in these discussions need to be realistic. Yours isn't.
Hypothetically you could have a cop who constantly stops mainly black people simply to hassle them and piss them off because he's a racist. Hypothetically this cop could also be black, hypothetically he could even be from Mars. Hypothetically.
Sure, I'm jumping to conclusions, and you're keeping your head in the sand.
That's twice you have declined to give an example of how a racist cop (which no one is denying exists) is likely to behave in a racist manner which is not obvious so we can then see how you would suggest they be held to account for that.
You are trying to deflect so that you and others can continue to claim that there is no evidence of individual or systemic racism within police forces.
I still want you to answer the question asked, but given you are trying to dance around it on the basis that it is hypothetical related, here's a specific case for you.
Arkansas Sherriff resignsOn Friday morning, Arkansas County Sheriff Todd Wright resigned from his position following the circulation of a five-minute audio recording in which he used the n-word, an anti-Black racial slur, nine times to describe a Black employee of a Piggly Wiggly grocery store.
In the recording, Wright, upset that the woman he was was with had spoken to the Black male employee, calls her a "[n-word] lover" and refers to the man as a "f*cking Black-ass [n-word]."
He was Sherriff in a county which is 25% black, twice the national average, do you think he was likely to be have treated all black people he engaged with in a fair manner given his engrained beliefs? How do you think that deputies out of his office would have been encouraged to behave towards some members of the community?
But note, it took a recording from his private life to ultimately result in his removal (resigning, not firing) from his role after he insisted he wasn't a racist.
If Todd Wright had come in to the news for being excessively forceful in a traffic stop, you guys would likely argue there was no evidence of him being racist, and it was just people looking to inject racism in to a case where there was none. So how should society deal with cases of racists holding positions of authority within police bodies? Ignore it, until there is clear and unambiguous evidence that it exists? Or be forceful in ensuring that it will be sought out and removed?0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Sure, I'm jumping to conclusions, and you're keeping your head in the sand.
That's twice you have declined to give an example of how a racist cop (which no one is denying exists) is likely to behave in a racist manner which is not obvious so we can then see how you would suggest they be held to account for that.
I gave a hypothetical like you asked:Hypothetically you could have a cop who constantly stops mainly black people simply to hassle them and piss them off because he's a racist.
Maybe if you weren't so quick jumping to conclusions you would've read my post.Tell me how wrote: »You are trying to deflect so that you and others can continue to claim that there is no evidence of individual or systemic racism within police forces.
Where have I claimed there is no evidence of individual racism in police forces? More conclusion jumping, and this based off literally two interactions, considering you 'don't remember' our last ones.Tell me how wrote: »I still want you to answer the question asked, but given you are trying to dance around it on the basis that it is hypothetical related, here's a specific case for you.
I already answered you question, see above.Tell me how wrote: »Arkansas Sherriff resigns
He was Sherriff in a county which is 25% black, twice the national average, do you think he was likely to be have treated all black people he engaged with in a fair manner given his engrained beliefs? How do you think that deputies out of his office would have been encouraged to behave towards some members of the community?
What's this got to do with police being trained to be racist, or being trained to engage in racist activities?Tell me how wrote: »But note, it took a recording from his private life to ultimately result in his removal (resigning, not firing) from his role after he insisted he wasn't a racist.
Which is not evidence of 'systematic racism'.Tell me how wrote: »If Todd Wright had come in to the news for being excessively forceful in a traffic stop, you guys would likely argue there was no evidence of him being racist, and it was just people looking to inject racism in to a case where there was none. So how should society deal with cases of racists holding positions of authority within police bodies? Ignore it, until there is clear and unambiguous evidence that it exists? Or be forceful in ensuring that it will be sought out and removed?
No, when these people engage in racism, as per your example above, they get fired. The answer, which is what you are doing, is assuming every perceived negative encounter a black person has with the police, particularly if the policeman is white, is a result of racism. What percentage of the police would you estimate are racists, because you must believe it to be quite high?0 -
Advertisement
-
Joe Arpaio also a great example of racist law enforcement that the former president pardoned and used use for campaigning purposes.0
-
I gave a hypothetical like you asked:
Maybe if you weren't so quick jumping to conclusions you would've read my post.
Where have I claimed there is no evidence of individual racism in police forces? More conclusion jumping, and this based off literally two interactions, considering you 'don't remember' our last ones.
I already answered you question, see above.
What's this got to do with police being trained to be racist, or being trained to engage in racist activities?
Which is not evidence of 'systematic racism'.
No, when these people engage in racism, as per your example above, they get fired. The answer, which is what you are doing, is assuming every perceived negative encounter a black person has with the police, particularly if the policeman is white, is a result of racism. What percentage of the police would you estimate are racists, because you must believe it to be quite high?
Todd Wright wasn't fired. Maybe you should take more time to read posts also. And your view that this is not evidence of systemic racism is choosing to not look at the likely reality of someone with such views being in a position of authority over other police officers.
I expect that a large number of the nearly 18,000 police forces in America are likely to have engrained elements which are rooted in prejudiced views and actions being carried out against some people in the communities in which they police.
And no, I am not saying that every police force or officer is racist, or that the exact, irrefutable figure is possible to determine, I am saying that because there are some action is needed, you are saying that because there are unknowns, everyone should get the benefit of the doubt until they categorically prove that they are so.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Joe Arpaio also a great element of racist law enforcement that the former president pardoned and used use for campaigning purposes.
Exactly.
Refused to stop racial profiling and when convicted for disobeying the court order for doing so, the President of the country pardoned him.
The same President who police force unions came out in support of and who aligned himself with a racist organization.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Todd Wright wasn't fired. Maybe you should take more time to read posts also. And your view that this is not evidence of systemic racism is choosing to not look at the likely reality of someone with such views being in a position of authority over other police officers.
No, it's accepting that one racist individual doesn't make a system racist. He 'resigned' in the sense that had he not resigned he would've been fired.
I'm not suggesting you are saying every police officer is racist, I don't know why you felt to add that. I'm asking you to give a guesstimate as to what proportion you suspect are.Tell me how wrote: »I expect that a large number of the nearly 18,000 police forces in America are likely to have engrained elements which are rooted in prejudiced views and actions being carried out against some people in the communities in which they police.
And no, I am not saying that every police force or officer is racist, or that the exact, irrefutable figure is possible to determine, I am saying that because there are some action is needed, you are saying that because there are unknowns, everyone should get the benefit of the doubt until they categorically prove that they are so.
As regards to yours last point. Yes, people should get the benefit of the doubt, less they have some sort of dubious history themselves.0 -
Well this is gas. Chauvin is arguing he be sentenced to time already served for murdering George Floyd because, “ his lack of criminal history, his amenability to probation, to the unusual facts of this case, and to his being a product of a ‘broken’ system.”
Absolutely hilarious. I didn’t get qualified immunity so the system is broken help meeeee
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/george-floyd-death/convicted-murderer-derek-chauvin-says-he-should-get-probation-instead-of-prison-because-the-system-is-broken/0 -
Well this is gas. Chauvin is arguing he be sentenced to time already served for murdering George Floyd because, “ his lack of criminal history, his amenability to probation, to the unusual facts of this case, and to his being a product of a ‘broken’ system.”
Absolutely hilarious. I didn’t get qualified immunity so the system is broken help meeeee
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/george-floyd-death/convicted-murderer-derek-chauvin-says-he-should-get-probation-instead-of-prison-because-the-system-is-broken/
Well, he's pulling the same argument that "oppressed" people are using when looking for excuses to their misbehavior0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Same argument, broken system makes people criminals
He has a point
the system didn't make him choke that guy out. The system urged him to put Floyd in the recovery position - so did at least one of the other officers on scene, along with a dozen or so bystanders. The only thing the system did was call him out for a fake $20, it was his call to escalate it to murder.
If he means something else is broken he should be more specific.0 -
Let's be clear, I'm not in favor of de-funding the police, more cops would be the better options for certain neighborhoods
But I do appreciate the irony of Chauvin pulling the exact same argument about the failed system that makes people criminals, because that's the same argument used to defend drug dealers, looters and the likes.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement