George Floyd

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Maniac Craniac, Jun 2, 2020.

Loading...
  1. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    First, implementing the death penalty should never be quick, nor easy. It is irrevocable and the accused's rights must be protected. That's why it is much more expensive to execute someone than it is just to put him/her away for life without parole.

    Second, I doubt seriously if a murder charge can be upheld. It means that he intended to kill the victim and knew he was killing him. I'm not so sure that will be proven. I would not be surprised to see a plea deal (or a conviction if it goes to trial) of manslaughter. I think it is entirely possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to harm Floyd, and that his actions led directly to Floyd's death. But proving that he took his actions specifically to kill Floyd? I don't know about that. (I'm not an attorney, nor am I pretending to be, and others with more knowledge might very well have a different take.)
     
  2. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    In Minesotta, one of the definitions of Second Degree Murder is:
    • Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony other than criminal sexual conduct (rape or sexual assault which would be first-degree murder) or a drive-by shooting
    Source: https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-second-degree-murder.html

    As a fellow non-attorney, I think there's a strong chance that he can be convicted on these grounds. I'm sure the actual attorney has confidence as well, since he was the one who chose this charge (it was initially 3rd degree murder).
     
    LearningAddict likes this.
  3. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    I'm about to get a car again, but it's been nice not having a car for the year I've been back in the States. I had started having to fight off panic attacks when a police car pulled behind or beside me. It's very hard to be fully present and compliant with police (for what that's worth) when you're trying not to panic.

    The flood of relief you get when it's not you they're stopping or when the officer acts professionally is, literally, a physical feeling. It's visceral. For me, it's like I was holding my breath the entire time and finally got to breathe. I feel like a deflating balloon that's limp after all the air is out. Then, I have to gather myself while I'm waiting for my trembling to stop.
     
  4. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    From where I'm sitting, it's not unprecedented at all. The constitutional rights of my community are hardly ever recognized and upheld. The Second Amendment is a prime example. Think about how police response differs between white men exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms and black men exercising theirs. How many armed white men have been apprehended without incident? Most of them. How many armed black people, especially men, have been apprehended without incident? Very few. In fact, white men's right to march and protest with their rifles on their shoulders is protected by police. Let a cadre of black men try the same exact thing and see what happens.

    If a black person even flinches while being taken into custody, they're beaten until they stop moving. Add to that, any and all flinching is called resisting arrest. You attempt to reposition yourself to try to protect yourself from blows? Resisting arrest. You bob and weave to try to dodge blows to your face and head? Resisting arrest. You talk back? Resisting arrest. But, nobody wants to answer the question of how can you be resisting arrest if you're not under arrest yet?

    So, for black people, arrest is actually when you've been stopped by the police for whatever reason. Sandra Bland got dragged out of her car and man-handled for having the audacity to talk back to a white man. There is plenty of that attitude still around. I just saw a video of a white woman getting slapped for grabbing an Hispanic woman's arm, and yanking her back, to keep the woman from walking away from her while she was talking. And, the white woman really thought that she had been wronged. And, a week or so ago, there was the woman with the dog in Central Park. She tried to get that black man killed just because he had the audacity to ask her to leash her dog. Those people's sentiments didn't appear out of thin air. It happens too much for it to be an individual thing. It's cultural and is a throwback to the days of Jim Crow.

    No, it's not unprecedented at all. What changed is that George Floyd's death was the straw that broke the camel's back. The genie is out of the bottle and I hope they can't get it back in until things are made right. I truly hope my people don't fall for these pacification tactics. We need to stand firm in demanding real change. Symbolic change can take a hike.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2020
    SteveFoerster likes this.
  5. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    I think Chauvin meant to kill George Floyd. Why? Because, there were a LOT of people there begging him to take his knee off of Floyd's neck. He ignored them. The fact that three other officers had their weight on his body meant that Floyd wasn't going anywhere and Chauvin could have taken his knee off his neck while continuing to help restrain him. But, he refused. Then, there was Floyd's own pleas to Chauvin telling him he couldn't breathe and that he was dying. Chauvin didn't budge. Floyd then called out for his (dead) mama to help him and stopped breathing and Chauvin still didn't budge. Lastly, Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck for several minutes after Floyd stopped speaking or moving - as if he wanted to make sure Floyd was dead and past being resuscitated.

    There is no way in Hades I'm going to ever believe that Chauvin didn't fully intend to end George Floyd's life. Chauvin was a dirty cop and had the complaints to prove it. Now, what I can see happening is the other three officers striking plea deals. They should still do double digit years before being eligible for parole. But, Chauvin? He should spend the rest of his natural life in prison with no parole, or get sentenced to so many years that he'll get out of prison just in time to die of old age. He should receive the same amount of mercy he showed George Floyd. None.
     
    SteveFoerster likes this.
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    That's a very long leap in inference. Intent is a slippery thing and is very, very hard to prove. That's why I believe he will plead guilty to a lesser charge.

    The Minnesota AG upgraded the charge to 2nd degree murder. That will be harder to prove, so I suspect he's pretty confident he'll get a conviction. Because if the prosecution reaches too far, they could wind up with an acquittal on their hands for a guy who killed a suspect he was detaining.

    Really? What if there was truly exculpatory evidence? (I'm not saying there is.) Would you stick to your suddenly dis-proven theory? That's exactly what Donald Trump has done regarding the Central Park Five. Even after they were exonerated, Trump continued to insist that they did it. You wouldn't want to be like that, would you?

    I truly believe OJ murdered two people. He did it, and he did it alone. But if some evidence arose to prove his innocence, I would be willing to accept it.
     
  7. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Floyd was brutally killed by Derek Chauvin when the former Police Officer pressed his knee against Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes continuously.
    This inhumane act sparked outrage among the entire nation, protesters are expressing strong disagreement with current police norms all over the country.

    Why was the police called on Mr. Floyd? Was the police protecting the public at the time?
    No one approves the tragic way Mr' Floyd's death.

    But why are people making a saint out of him?

     
  8. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    Look... I can't continue in this discussion because I'm still too much in my feelings. Everyone have a nice day.
     
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    If so, perhaps you should refrain from posting them.
     
  10. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    That was the whole point of that post. What is your problem? This is the second thread you've followed me into being condescending. Are you trying to target me? Stop it.
     
  11. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    Personally, I expect he did. And yet had I been on the jury I'd have voted to acquit him, because once police tamper with evidence, that's game, set, and match for reasonable doubt.
     
  12. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I didn't react emotionally to his acquittal for the same reason. Of COURSE he killed them. And I think the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. But there are rules in place to protect defendants' rights, and misconduct by the police is a huge reason for letting him go. Not because they tainted his case--the evidence was overwhelming. But as a deterrent. If he'd not been OJ Simpson, if he'd been a bus driver, he'd be "Orenthal the bus-driving murderer." (Chris Rock)

    That doesn't mean the police and/or the prosecution have to be perfect in every way or the perp walks. But when their misconduct is purposeful and material, you have to let the accused walk as a deterrent to this misconduct.
     
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    You offered up a pretty opinionated post and I responded to it.

    No, I'm not "targeting" you. I don't know you. I'm responding to what you posted in a public forum.
     
  14. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    In other words, I don't accept the preferred 'narrative' and I'm damnably failing to let myself dance to the politically correct tune.

    The suggestion in all this is that I'm somehow obligated to join the herd, let myself be jerked around like a puppet and exclusively hold opinions approved by the left. Except that I damnably prefer to think for myself and form my own opinions. I always will. It doesn't concern me whether the political left approves.

    The suggestion seems to be that I'm supposed to be aroused into great passion by George Floyd's death. Well, I'm not. It doesn't particularly move me at all. Patrick Underwood's death probably moves me more.

    Frankly, I don't really obsess over every homicide that happens anywhere, if it has nothing to do with me. Neither does the left. How many homicides happen every day? None of them are pleasant for the victims, their friends or their families. Does the left demand that we all behave like idiot puppets and emote passionately and publicly about each one, crying and falling to our knees? Of course they don't demand that, since most of these homicides don't conform with their preferred political narratives and can't be exploited for their political purposes.

    They are disproportionately young-black-male on young-black-male killings and paying attention to them might suggest a different unwanted narrative that would favor more police presence in some black communities, not less. After all, the biggest cause of death by far among young black males is other young black males. 1.2% of the US population, black males 14 to 24 accounted for more than 27.8% of the nation's total homicides in 2005. (The last year for which I have numbers. Source for all the numbers is in the link below.) And homicide offenders typically kill members of their own race. One can make a very good argument that police attention to the low-end thug element in black communities saves black lives, while sweeping the whole thing under the rug for fear of being called "racist" deprives the law-abiding black population of the police protection they need and deserve, and it costs black lives.

    In 2005 there were 16,692 reported homicides. Of these 42.2% were black on black. An additional 8.8% were black on white. So in 2005, fully 1/2 of the homicides in the United States were committed by blacks, despite their only being 12% of the total population. 3.2% of total homicides were white on black.

    What "mark"? Who sets these marks and decides which opinion is the correct one? Is there really some objective fact of the matter about the conclusions one should draw from the unfortunate Floyd incident?

    A gratuitous politically loaded premise about the corruption of the entire justice system is sneaking in there. There's also an assumption that white police officers killing black people is common and widespread. Those are false generalizations in my opinion.

    The left is putting out the bald-faced lie that police-on-black homicide is tantamount to "genocide" and is among the leading causes of death among blacks. In reality, it isn't even close. In 2005, the last year I have numbers for. there were 343 justifiable homicides by police, of all races total.

    The left is trying to convince blacks to fear and refuse to cooperate with the police, which is totally disfunctional, contributes to black deaths and ironically is a huge contributor to the confrontational relationship that often exists between blacks and police. There's the suggestion that evil white police officers are out there killing blacks wholesale. In 2005, 28% of justifiable homicides by police involved a white officer killing a black. 343 x .28 = 96. And I'm confident that the vast majority of these were indeed justified. The number that are truly unjustified probably struggles to hit double digits. Compare that to 16,692 reported homicides in 2005. Certainly any number of unjustifiable homicides by police is too many and it needs addressing, but it's rare and it doesn't justify wholesale denunciation of the police and the justice system that we are seeing.

    And as long as we are talking about justice, does anyone really believe that the police officer accused of killing Floyd can receive a fair trial after all the shit that's gone down? If I was called for that jury, I'd fear that if the jury delivered a 'not guilty' verdict, the names of the jurors would be leaked and my home would be burned and myself and my family would face assault and likely murder. The intimidation is very real and it's also something that corrupts the justice system. Just the fear that a 'not guilty' verdict would incite nationwide deadly and destructive riots would accomplish that. Corruption of the legal process works both ways.

    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2020
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I'm not moved by George Floyd's death in particular. I'm moved by ALL of the extra-judicial killings by police, especially how it is weighted towards people of color.

    With the economic collapse also disproportionately affecting the same groups--not to mention the same thing with Covid-19--I think we've reached a tipping point. People are sick and tired of having the system rigged against them and they're making themselves heard.
     
    SteveFoerster likes this.
  16. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    I didn't actually mean targeting. It's just at the moment I wrote that reply I couldn't 'find' the word "trolling". Some, not all, of your replies to me have come across as condescending or insensitive to me, but I never thought you were being malicious. I can see how my choice of words could give that indication. But, that's not where my head was.

    To clarify, I tried to exit this thread because I realized that my emotions are unpredictable at the moment. I thought I was fine, but I'm not. I thought I could handle heavy discussion with people outside of my community, but I'm not there yet. I could be okay one minute and an hour later be full of rage. I have to work through that, so I need to exit this thread.
     
  17. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    I'm going to be the first to say that it's okay for you to feel how you feel. They're your feelings and they can't be invalidated just because they're not popular. There are a bunch of brands and people, who have never given a second thought to the plight of black and brown people in America, coming out of the woodwork and jumping on the social justice bandwagon. They're not doing this out of true solidarity, they're doing it because they don't want to be targeted by overzealous activists. The one thing we don't want is fake allies. We appreciate people being honest about how they feel about us because it's good to know who our enemies are.
     
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    That's entirely understandable, and I respect your honesty and self-reflection.
     
  19. StevenKing

    StevenKing Member

    It is sad what happened to George Floyd (I am against police brutality in any form...).

    What is also sad is that the edited version of this narrative propagated a litany of anarchist behavior that feels very different (Conspiracy bells chiming...).

    I am mortified by those who rush to judgment (those who made Floyd an exemplar of police abuse) without realizing the full story. While I think Chauvin is culpable for manslaughter; when will Americans learn to stop resisting?
     
  20. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly

    https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/06/05/witness-floyd-didnt-resist-arrest-tried-to-defuse-things/

    You don't have to be resisting arrest to be brutalized or even killed by police in this country. And until that changes, I respectfully suggest that you're mortified by the wrong thing.
     

Share This Page