Another black man murdered

[Tanaqui]

10 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Right, I’m everything that’s wrong, by trying to remain as level headed as possible so that someone gets a fair trial and complete investigation, no matter the moral revulsion?

You are not hearing or understanding what I am saying, and THAT is on you.  I am not the problem here, and neither is any other American demanding an investigation and full due process before a penalty of appropriate severity, up to and including the death penalty, be applied. That goes no matter the race of anyone involved.  EVERYONE DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL.  We would have a lot less people needing the Innocence Project if less prejudice and prejudgment were applied to more delicate, tense, emotionally charged cases.  
 

My personal horror doesn’t mean I throw out all standards by which we judge guilt or innocence.  And even if he is guilty as sin (which I do believe the cop is, 100%), I want these facts and this culture and the entire encounter FULLY and publicly litigated, with nothing funny or misleading or below board that could get the results overturned or tossed out.

 

You are aware that this standard is for a court of law, not for the court of public opinion, yes? Or the court of "the cops wanna take you down", for that matter. Worst that happens to these murderers is they get locked up. The man they killed is already dead.

[maikon]

I simply can't fathom that in this day and age it is possible for a police officer of a 1st world country to murder a suspect in broad daylight. What is more chilling is that there are no charges against the police officer.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

And honest to god, how often do the cops that act like this actually end up in prison? I’d guess that a big portion just get a job in a different city. And how many times have they gotten away with atrocities because they weren’t caught on cell phones or body cams( which amazingly often aren’t turned on or working when things get iffy)

 

 

You could probably count them on one hand.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Except I wasn’t there, I’ve only seen part of it.  And somewhere between the video, victims, and perpetrators is the truth. I am unwilling to judge that definitively until I get the other side.  One side always seems right until the other side speaks, and that can fill in a lot.  Like I said, a criminal will look more criminal with more information, not less.  I will join no mob.  Do not hear that to mean I have no feelings on this, I’m just trying to be as fair as possible and not litigate this from my couch on half a story.

 

There are additional videos from local merchants and the officers' body cams showing more of what happened before and during. It is possible for reasonable people to render a judgment based on history and observation. I do trust what I see with my own eyes. Sadly, the side that "ALWAYS SEEMS RIGHT" always seems to be the LEO. Why is that? The other side is DEAD and cannot speak. No one is asking anyone to join a mob but to exercise some discernment.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

There are additional videos from local merchants and the officers' body cams. It is possible for reasonable people to render a judgment based on history and observation. The side that "ALWAYS SEEMS RIGHT" always seems to be the LEO. Why is that? The other side is DEAD and cannot speak. No one is asking anyone to join a mob but to exercise some discernment.

I watched several videos on CNN last night.   I never did see resistance....not that would justify murdering him.  I can't imagine what that cop was thinking.

[hs03842]

13 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-martin-luther-king-had-75-percent-disapproval-rating-year-he-died-180968664/

I'm not disagreeing that we need change, but don't imagine that the entire country, or even most of it, was united by MLK's rhetoric and beliefs. Had they been, we might be in a better place today.

Eh...maybe I can hope. I’m just sad as are many people. 

[Tanaqui]

7 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Except I wasn’t there, I’ve only seen part of it.  And somewhere between the video, victims, and perpetrators is the truth. I am unwilling to judge that definitively until I get the other side.  One side always seems right until the other side speaks, and that can fill in a lot.  Like I said, a criminal will look more criminal with more information, not less.  I will join no mob.  Do not hear that to mean I have no feelings on this, I’m just trying to be as fair as possible and not litigate this from my couch on half a story.

 

You'd have a pretty far drive to get to the action. I'm glad, by the way, that you can be so dispassionate and certain that there MUST be another side to the story, every time, even though the story has been told the same way over and over again for the past hundred years and change, and always to the same blasted tune.

 

I'm all for keeping an open mind, but that doesn't mean we have to let our brains fall right out.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Tanaqui

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

Exactly.  I am exercising as much discernment and fairness as I can, and my rule is to be as slow to judge and unemotional as possible. Passions and anger do not serve the cause of justice, even though they may be on the side of right in the end. 

 

Try harder. Passion is the only thing that has advanced this issue to this level of public awareness.

[Tanaqui]

Quote

Passions and anger do not serve the cause of justice, even though they may be on the side of right in the end. 

 

Passion is how we effect change. Anger is how we make progress. Cool rationalizations are how we decide to just stay where we are. You've got this completely backwards.

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

This is one of the causes I feel the strongest about.  Where there are miscarriages in justice because of prejudice, bias, planted evidence, systemic failures, etc, innocent men lose some or ALL of their lives.  It is WRONG.  And a number of these cases are because of racial tension or profiling, good old boys club, etc. Less of that and more caution and fairness and investigations matters. And thank goodness cell data and DNA evidence is providing some facts where the witness accounts may be unclear.

 

I really don’t understand this thread or why I’m being targeted for wanting to keep my powder dry until it hits a judge?  It’s like no matter what I type you (general you) aren’t actually hearing it, you’re reading into it whatever you think my agenda is and making a straw man to hit.

 

Because, ultimately, LEOs like this rely on the public, as jurors, to excuse and rationalize their behavior...not a judge. Regular Joes. Every person who gives them, and not the victim, the benefit of the doubt renders the likelihood of anything resembling 'justice' less likely.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Arctic Mama said:

Did I say I was giving the cop the benefit of the doubt?  I did NOT.  I said I thought he was pretty much 100% guilty from all I have seen, but I am willing try try and reserve judgment on what to do about it as more facts come out and details about the cop and situation are discussed and litigated.  You are not understanding what I am getting at but I cannot say it more clearly.

 

I am not misunderstanding and, honestly, I am not trying to vilify you either. I am saying that this line of thinking--however well-meaning it may be--is unhelpful. The deck is already stacked against the victim. Balancing the scales requires something MORE than neutrality. It requires active support and advocacy.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No.  Absolutely not.  That is a dangerous position and not the job of the courts.  That is something a legislature or congress can and should handle, 100%, and a worthy cause.  But it is not appropriate for a criminal case.

 

Whatever. It's only math. The scales being even at this point right? History be damned. ETA: I need to bow out now. My mental health can't take anymore all sides bullshit.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

17 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

This is one of the causes I feel the strongest about.  Where there are miscarriages in justice because of prejudice, bias, planted evidence, systemic failures, etc, innocent men lose some or ALL of their lives.  It is WRONG.  And a number of these cases are because of racial tension or profiling, good old boys club, etc. Less of that and more caution and fairness and investigations matters. And thank goodness cell data and DNA evidence is providing some facts where the witness accounts may be unclear.

 

I really don’t understand this thread or why I’m being targeted for wanting to keep my powder dry until it hits a judge?  It’s like no matter what I type you (general you) aren’t actually hearing it, you’re reading into it whatever you think my agenda is and making a straw man to hit.

Well, I think the problem is that sometimes people just want to feel like they are being heard.  This isn't a court of law.  That video is horrifying.  That is really all that needs to be said at the moment.  

[frogger]

44 minutes ago, maikon said:

I simply can't fathom that in this day and age it is possible for a police officer of a 1st world country to murder a suspect in broad daylight. What is more chilling is that there are no charges against the police officer.

 

As hard as it is to believe, it is more common than the media lets on. 😠

[Tanaqui]

Arctic Mama, just because you haven't said the words "benefit of the doubt" doesn't mean that isn't exactly what you're doing here.

[bolt.]

I *do* want to know (not rhetorically) why an arrest is being delayed. It seems like the most normal next action to be taken after evidence of a crime is submitted, right?

Is there some sort of due process going on? An assessment of who was/wasn't involved other than the kneeling officer? Time gathering of evidence? Paperwork? Warrants? Subpoenas? Is there a task force (we have one) that takes over the investigation of 'police serious incidents' -- who needs to proceed according to a procedure?

Or is it really that someone is unclear whether criminal charges are the right thing here? That there is some appalling grey area around whether kneeling on someone's windpipe until they die might be considered some sort of non-criminal thing?

I too want to know what the officers were thinking -- what beliefs and 'permissions' underlie these decisions, how they defend themselves to themselves -- so that those specific permissions and beliefs can be targeted and eradicated: if not from the whole human population, at least from LEOs.

I too will refrain from claiming moral omniscience here. I too will welcome all of the information I can get. But I don't feel that I need to base all of my opinions and decisions on moral omniscience. My decisions are "Can I support or remain inactive if this does not lead to an arrest? If so, for how long?" / "Is this offense, based on our current understanding, egregious enough to engender public protest? If so, will I voice support? How? Will I participate? How?" / "At the next opportunity can I support or remain inactive while these forms of public governance and public service remain the same? If so, for how long? If not, what actions will I take?"

To refuse to take moral actions based on a lack of a flawless data set is an ethically intolerable conclusion. It is right to blend anger and passion with reason and wisdom to arrive at an active, highly motivated, moral choice for one's self. It's not about judging an empirical sense of guilty/not for a specific crime. We exist in societies that have highly trained and nuanced systems to take that task out of the hands of mobs informed only by news media. That's well-and-good. It isn't the average citizen's job, and we don't need to rush to do it. But we have other duties. To confuse the burden of proof required for a legal conviction with the standard of evidence that ought to motivate our own moral conduct is a trap that leads to immoral inactivity. We are allowed to participate in public opinion. Our voices are a part of our agency.

Conflating 'I can't judge flawlessly' with 'therefore I can't act on my best judgement' a temptation to evil. We should resist it just as firmly as we resist the urge to bay for blood without due process. The correct course is somewhere between the two.

[Moonhawk]

59 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

[Moonhawk deleted to simplify her post]

[I've deleted a quote and specific reply because it can be confusing and generally isn't necessary for my second part of post]

Also, generally:  

We all want justice. Here is our common ground.

And justice starts with looking at the available evidence and moving forward with the judicial process.

Right now, the next step is the arrest of at least the officer who knelt on Mr. Floyd's neck. That has not happened.

As of right now, then, it seems a miscarriage of justice is in process, or at least you can understand why others would feel this way.

To be angry and to show anger at this current miscarriage of justice is not a rush to judgement. (And I understand you think he should be arrested. Again, common ground.)

I think others displaying this anger at the situation -- both the original murder and now the lack of arrest --  see "don't rush to judgement" as passively agreeing with the current miscarriage of justice. Because the judgement they have made is: he should be arrested based on what we have seen. 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Moonhawk

[AbcdeDooDah]

I have no doubt he'll be arrested. My friend was  killed by an impaired driver. It was obvious at the scene. An arrest took almost a month. The prosecutor wants the charges to stick so evidence is collected to make as much of an airtight case as possible with the charges that have the best chance of sticking. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

Of course it is. He was murdered. 

I'm only saying what I know from my experience.  Arrests don't always come when they should. It's a sad fact. It was excruciating watch the POS that killed my friend posting on Facebook like nothing happened while we waited for justice. 

If they chose Murder 1, that's going to be hard to prove. I hope they go for Murder 2 rather than manslaughter.

Edited May 28, 2020 by AbcdeDooDah

[AbcdeDooDah]

The way it was explained to us is that after charges are filed there is clock that starts and the case must move forward. You don't want that to happen without every possible piece of evidence.

[bolt.]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

I am puzzled about 'making the charges stick'.

The facts of the case aren't some mystery that needs solving by a team of dedicated investigators.

Is there or isn't there video footage showing a police officer kneeling on the neck of a black man past the point at which the man stopped moving, while he was telling the officer that he could not breathe, and while bystanders were also telling the police officer that he needed to get off the neck of the black man, because the officer was injuring him, and that an ambulance needed to be called?

What facts are in doubt here?

Is there some alternate universe where kneeling on the neck of another non-resisting human until they are so close to death they die, while being warned this is what is happening, is NOT a crime? Is there some camera angle that managed to deceive not only the public baying for an innocent man's blood, but also the bystanders? Where is the confusion? 

The fact of a crime is right before our eyes.

People familiar with the ways justice systems work know very well that the smallest error of procedure can be exploited to turn a case against even the most obvious facts. Various kinds of evidence might or might not be admissible. If rights are violated before/during/after charges being laid, it doesn't always continue to matter whether or not they did the crime itself. It also matters 'which charges' are laid. If charges are laid beyond what can be substantiated (ie what class of murder / manslaughter) a case can be lost due to not reaching (or not being able to prove) a specific standard or characteristic of that exact crime-as-charged. And what about a jury? If a fair jury can not be found, I don't know what happens.

I mean, what if that video isn't admissible? That would be horrific, but it could be true. What if it's anonymous? Maybe they need to build a case apart from the video.

It's not about doubting the facts. It's about making sure that the road that leads to *proving* those facts, as specifically is required in a court of law, is a mile wide and perfectly paved. No bumps. No errors. No wiggle room.

Yes there are places where that's not always crime. There are places where that's a 'mistake'. America is one of them. Canada is another. (A) "I didn't know I was on his windpipe, I thought I was on a different nearby less deadly body part." and (B) "I thought he was faking and playing possum for the crowd. The minute I let up, he would have attacked/run." Those 'mistakes' (and the LEOs that make them) have been rampant in North America for a hundred years. That's why there is anger. Because there's actually a fairly good chance that those defenses will work just as well in this case as they have in thousands of previous cases. The system is sick.

The lack of immediate arrest might well be procedure and case building. Maybe somebody is working within the system to break the pattern. But the lack of immediate arrest also might be *yet another instance* of the whole system pretending that when a LEO takes a black life, it's maybe just an "honest mistake" in a "difficult situation" with a POC "resisting" him. (In which case there might not even be an arrest.)

[J-rap]

34 minutes ago, bolt. said:

I *do* want to know (not rhetorically) why an arrest is being delayed. It seems like the most normal next action to be taken after evidence of a crime is submitted, right?

Is there some sort of due process going on? An assessment of who was/wasn't involved other than the kneeling officer? Time gathering of evidence? Paperwork? Warrants? Subpoenas? Is there a task force (we have one) that takes over the investigation of 'police serious incidents' -- who needs to proceed according to a procedure?

Or is it really that someone is unclear whether criminal charges are the right thing here? That there is some appalling grey area around whether kneeling on someone's windpipe until they die might be considered some sort of non-criminal thing?

I too want to know what the officers were thinking -- what beliefs and 'permissions' underlie these decisions, how they defend themselves to themselves -- so that those specific permissions and beliefs can be targeted and eradicated: if not from the whole human population, at least from LEOs.

I too will refrain from claiming moral omniscience here. I too will welcome all of the information I can get. But I don't feel that I need to base all of my opinions and decisions on moral omniscience. My decisions are "Can I support or remain inactive if this does not lead to an arrest? If so, for how long?" / "Is this offense, based on our current understanding, egregious enough to engender public protest? If so, will I voice support? How? Will I participate? How?" / "At the next opportunity can I support or remain inactive while these forms of public governance and public service remain the same? If so, for how long? If not, what actions will I take?"

To refuse to take moral actions based on a lack of a flawless data set is an ethically intolerable conclusion. It is right to blend anger and passion with reason and wisdom to arrive at an active, highly motivated, moral choice for one's self. It's not about judging an empirical sense of guilty/not for a specific crime. We exist in societies that have highly trained and nuanced systems to take that task out of the hands of mobs informed only by news media. That's well-and-good. It isn't the average citizen's job, and we don't need to rush to do it. But we have other duties. To confuse the burden of proof required for a legal conviction with the standard of evidence that ought to motivate our own moral conduct is a trap that leads to immoral inactivity. We are allowed to participate in public opinion. Our voices are a part of our agency.

Conflating 'I can't judge flawlessly' with 'therefore I can't act on my best judgement' a temptation to evil. We should resist it just as firmly as we resist the urge to bay for blood without due process. The correct course is somewhere between the two.

Listening to the news now.  They are saying they are following protocol as quickly as possible, which requires them to collect and go through all evidence -- body cameras, witness videos, etc.  

[AbcdeDooDah]

13 minutes ago, bolt. said:

People familiar with the ways justice systems work know very well that the smallest error of procedure can be exploited to turn a case against even the most obvious facts. Various kinds of evidence might or might not be admissible. If rights are violated before/during/after charges being laid, it doesn't always continue to matter whether or not they did the crime itself. It also matters 'which charges' are laid. If charges are laid beyond what can be substantiated (ie what class of murder / manslaughter) a case can be lost due to not reaching (or not being able to prove) a specific standard or characteristic of that exact crime-as-charged. And what about a jury? If a fair jury can not be found, I don't know what happens.

I mean, what if that video isn't admissible? That would be horrific, but it could be true. What if it's anonymous? Maybe they need to build a case apart from the video.

It's not about doubting the facts. It's about making sure that the road that leads to *proving* those facts, as specifically is required in a court of law, is a mile wide and perfectly paved. No bumps. No errors. No wiggle room.

Yes there are places where that's not always crime. There are places where that's a 'mistake'. America is one of them. Canada is another. (A) "I didn't know I was on his windpipe, I thought I was on a different nearby less deadly body part." and (B) "I thought he was faking and playing possum for the crowd. The minute I let up, he would have attacked/run." Those 'mistakes' (and the LEOs that make them) have been rampant in North America for a hundred years. That's why there is anger. Because there's actually a fairly good chance that those defenses will work just as well in this case as they have in thousands of previous cases. The system is sick.

The lack of immediate arrest might well be procedure and case building. Maybe somebody is working within the system to break the pattern. But the lack of immediate arrest also might be *yet another instance* of the whole system pretending that when a LEO takes a black life, it's maybe just an "honest mistake" in a "difficult situation" with a POC "resisting" him. (In which case there might not even be an arrest.)

Exactly!  We don't want this dismissed on a technicality.

I have intimate knowledge of a case that was dismissed because the officer misquoted the victim and put the wrong date on the report.

Edited May 28, 2020 by AbcdeDooDah

[bolt.]

Just now, StellaM said:

Maybe I'm just very cynical, but to me delay also smacks of 'give the black community some time to get really angry so we can switch the narrative to black riots, instead of murdering cop.'

That too. It's so sickening.

[Sneezyone]

28 minutes ago, J-rap said:

Listening to the news now.  They are saying they are following protocol as quickly as possible, which requires them to collect and go through all evidence -- body cameras, witness videos, etc.  

 

Bullshit. Anyone else would already be in cuffs. They know prosecuting and convicting an LEO against the winds of "ALLL SIDERS" is an uphill battle. Only LEOs and the wealthy get this kind of kid-glove treatment. Those 'technicalities' and 'motivations' are overlooked or dismissed as irrelevant for everyone else.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Sneezyone

[maize]

2 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Exactly.  I am exercising as much discernment and fairness as I can, and my rule is to be as slow to judge and unemotional as possible. Passions and anger do not serve the cause of justice, even though they may be on the side of right in the end. 

I get what you are saying AM, but I can envision no possible justification for murder by an LEO of a man who is already subdued and cuffed. 

What information do you think you need? Why do you need to hear another side to the story to decide what was done to that man was wrong?

[Sneezyone]

19 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Well don’t toss me into that group then. Because I firmly believe this should be proceeding fairly, speedily, and fully within the exact same system this man was supposed to be working for.  Police officers are not above the law.  
 

You’re running a script in your head on this that isn’t what is being said on here.  Anyone who is against this man getting investigated, arrested, and tried even just based on the current body of evidence is wrong,  full stop.  But that isn’t me. I am waiting to see what should be done as just punishment for a man losing his life who didn’t have to.  I want to full story from both sides.  I want every witness account into the record.  And I want to see exactly what charges they can make stick  based on the preponderance of evidence.

 

Running a script in my head? Gaslight much? We've SEEN how this plays out. There's a track record. There's experience. There are observable events to draw from. You and I really don't need to discuss this further.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Tanaqui]

56 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

It isn’t, stop mind reading.  

 

The words I've bolded in the following quotes by you mean the same thing as 'giving the benefit of the doubt'. It's not mind reading, it's English reading.

Quote

The video looks terrible.  I’m willing to reserve judgment until an investigation is concluded, but as it is it looks completely, utterly damning to have gone to that extent, once cuffs were on and he was subdued. I’m trying to be objective and think of the possible reasoning here but I’m not seeing anything convincing.

 

Quote

 

There have been so many cases where something looks a certain way, even with video, and as more story comes out and fills in the detail the snap assessments of it paint a different picture than what investigation reveals.  That informs the severity and type of punishment, if nothing else.

My policy is to reserve judgment and wait to decide how I feel about something until the immediate reactions pass, usually 48-72 hours. With time and some further information I might still make the same judgment, but with less of the mob mentality and outrage.  Those aren’t fruitful for me or the cause of justice.  A crime will still look criminal with more details and statements out about it.

My knee jerk reaction to it is horrified.  But I’m willing to hear the side from the police too, before I string up the gallows.  I might still want him to hang, but judgment in the court of public opinion isn’t the way I do things, or try really hard not to. The Central Park Five got that treatment, and that served no one.

 

 

(Bonus here for your disgusting comparison of people caught doing murder on camera to people accused in a racist way with no evidence at all of committing rape.)

Quote

Except I wasn’t there, I’ve only seen part of it.  And somewhere between the video, victims, and perpetrators is the truth. I am unwilling to judge that definitively until I get the other side.  One side always seems right until the other side speaks, and that can fill in a lot.  Like I said, a criminal will look more criminal with more information, not less.  I will join no mob.  Do not hear that to mean I have no feelings on this, I’m just trying to be as fair as possible and not litigate this from my couch on half a story.

 

Those words say the same thing as "give the benefit of the doubt".

Also, please, stop repeating that nonsense about "a fair trial". Nobody wants them NOT to have a trial. We all want them to have a trial. Nobody is advocating that they not be tried. Continuing to attack the strawman about how some people don't want a trial is tantamount to lying.

[Ottakee]

45 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Exactly!  We don't want this dismissed on a technicality.

I have intimate knowledge of a case that was dismissed because the officer misquoted the victim and put the wrong date on the report.

I hope this is the reasoning.  When my now ex husband was arrested it took them 6 months to make the arrest.  There was so much behind the scenes work to build an air tight case.  There were good reasons though.

I hope that is the same thing here, that the process and procedures are being followed to the letter to avoid any chance of technicalities.

[Tanaqui]

Well, Arctic Mama, only you know what you mean, but we all know what you said.

You might want to step back and consider that the problem is not that EVERYBODY on this thread is not listening to you, or making things up, or adding new meaning, but that instead you are just not expressing yourself very well. I have quoted the words that, to me, in plain english, mean the exact same thing as "give them the benefit of the doubt". If you don't mean that, and many people think you do based on the words you keep saying, then you ought to choose different words and say different things that mean what you intend.

Meanwhile, you've also talked a lot about not wanting to "string them up" or "build gallows" or whatever, which is all well and good but surely implies that somebody else does want to do those things. And if you don't think anybody wants to do those things then I just don't know why you keep saying it.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Tanaqui

[maize]

13 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Well, my words stand.  If they’re not being heard clearly I can’t do better.  I’ve never been accused of being a poor communicator before but there is a first time for everything.

I’m glad you now understand what I am trying to say 🙂 I’m reserving judgment, but it’s not because I believe that anything other than context can come from the other side, to provide a clearer picture to move forward from. I want to end my life never being accused of emotional, pained responses to situations instead of calm, fair, or just.  That is really, really important to me personally, though maybe not to everyone else, I don’t know. It’s pretty individual.

I suspect that real change must be driven by emotion--maybe we need to collectively feel the shame and horror of what is being done on a regular basis to people in this country in order to rise up as a nation and demand it stop--and act to bring about the change that will uphold the value and dignity of every human soul regardless of skin color or ethnic background.

Martin Luther King's speech and MLK's actions did not come from a place of calm--every word he spoke rang with passion.

I do not know why you would forbid yourself passion for what is right and just AM. Detached, clinical calm is not always the best response.

Edited May 28, 2020 by maize

[Joker]

I honestly don’t get what people are supposed to do because the same thing keeps happening over and over again and justice rarely ever occurs. It seems that African Americans aren’t allowed to protest in any form. I honestly don’t think peaceful protests are going to do anything as they haven’t already.

I also need all of the good police, and I do know most are good, to start speaking up often and loud against the bad ones. They need to start demanding action when these things happen because I’m seriously starting to lose all respect.

[maize]

20 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Oh it totally is.  Nothing in life outside of the arts goes better with passion if it overrides logic and facts.  When the passion is synchronized with those it’s the most potent of all, and that’s why MLK made such an impact, I think.

I don't think I understand this paragraph. 

Do you not think a passionate response to an obvious abuse of police power that resulted in a completely unjustifiable death is in sync with logic and facts?

Edited May 28, 2020 by maize

[bolt.]

I don't think African Americans aren't allowed to protest 'in any form' -- clearly people of colour can and do protest. It's just that the coverage of the protests also includes the 'drama' of people reacting against those protests. Which is to be expected. Anything worth protesting about has a contingent of people invested in objecting to the protest. A protest that gains a bad reaction isn't the same as a protest that didn't happen because it's 'not allowed'. We want to acknowledge that those who object to protests don't speak for the society -- which involves society speaking for itself (in support of the protests) so that the objectors are the 'outsiders' (instead of the protesters).

I think peaceful protests and other forms of advocacy / education have done something -- all kinds of people (me included) know a lot more about police violence against people of colour than I used to. It has shifted my basic response from "there's probably an explanation for this strange violent event" to "this fits a known pattern of violence". It has shifted public narrative from "so, a bad thing happened" to "another black man murdered". 

I think the demand for the bad apples to be rejected from law enforcement is coming. Or maybe I'm naive.

[AbcdeDooDah]

16 minutes ago, Joker said:

 

I also need all of the good police, and I do know most are good, to start speaking up often and loud against the bad ones. They need to start demanding action when these things happen because I’m seriously starting to lose all respect.

They are. You won't find them on MSM, for the most part. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by AbcdeDooDah

[maize]

4 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

They might feel they have enough to judge on and react to, but I’m not there yet.  I have my reaction to the video and social media and protest responses, and I’m watching the statements and police action in investigation what went wrong here.  I don’t have a strong opinion on whether everyone else thinks they know enough to know it all, I don’t know what they have access to or if they’re seeing something I’m not.  So I’m trying not to judge anyone or anything with this yet, I’ve been waiting and thinking and trying not to side with my gut reaction yet.

I will ask you again then--what information do you think you need to determine that the LEO's action was horrific?

What further information could possibly emerge that would make his actions right and just, or even merely neutral or slightly bad?

I'm trying to imagine any justification. Maybe you think he had some kind of absence seizure during the entire time the man he was crushing the life out of was dying, so he didn't actually know what he was doing? What explanation less drastic would you accept as a reason to determine this was not in fact a horrific murder?

[Pawz4me]

17 minutes ago, Joker said:

I honestly don’t get what people are supposed to do because the same thing keeps happening over and over again and justice rarely ever occurs. It seems that African Americans aren’t allowed to protest in any form. I honestly don’t think peaceful protests are going to do anything as they haven’t already.

I also need all of the good police, and I do know most are good, to start speaking up often and loud against the bad ones. They need to start demanding action when these things happen because I’m seriously starting to lose all respect.

 

1 minute ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

They are. You won't find them on MSM, for the most part. 

Police chiefs react with disgust to Minneapolis death, try to reassure their own cities (Washington Post)

[Innisfree]

40 minutes ago, Danae said:

Reserving judgment is the job of the judge and jury and deciding what charges to file is the job of the prosecutor.  Everyone here will concede to the murderers the due process and fair trial that they denied their victim. The chances of them being lynched by some vigilante are infinitesimally small. Again, unlike their victim. 

Claims of dispassionate fairness that overlook the very real power differential between white police defendants and the typical client of the innocence project are staggeringly off-kilter. 

This.

16 minutes ago, maize said:

I suspect that real change must be driven by emotion--maybe we need to collectively feel the shame and horror of what is being done on a regular basis to people in this country in order to rise up as a nation and demand it stop--and act to bring about the change that will uphold the value and dignity of every human soul regardless of skin color or ethnic background.

Martin Luther King's speech did not come from a place of calm--every word he spoke rang with passion.

I do not know why you would forbid yourself passion for what is right and just AM. Detached, clinical calm is not always the best response.

And this.

Unless we have a role in the courtroom, where I agree that judgement must be reserved until the case is proven, our most appropriate role as involved citizens is to express loudly and openly our horror, disgust and moral outrage. That is a valid role, which can help drive change. Those emotions aren't inappropriate; they are utterly appropriate and necessary.

No one is arguing for lynching the officer. His arrest and trial need to be by the book.

The role of the citizenry is different. We get to express our outrage, and doing so is the best action we can take, aside from voting in ways which will further the cause of justice.

 

[Terabith]

Not only am I appalled by the murder and lack of arrest of the officer, but the tear gassing and assaulting of peaceful protestors (who were even social distancing) by a police force that should have hyper awareness of perception and been chastened by the actions of their officers.  There's no wonder there's rioting.  I mean, heck, PEACEFULLY KNEELING got them crap.  If that's not considered "appropriate protest," then literally nothing would be.  It's sickening.

[AbcdeDooDah]

Might sound silly but for boots-on-the-ground perspectives from individual officers, check out TikTok. Yes, I'm being serious. If you're not seeing officers speak out, then you're probably need to look for them. Try #copsontiktok, #officerstiktok, etc. Today, my feed was full of officers denouncing the officers' actions and calling it murder.

Edited May 29, 2020 by AbcdeDooDah

[Tree Frog]

48 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Well assume the best of me and seek to put the very best interpretation on my words.  That’s what we all should do with one another 🙂

I'm a little concerned about this statement. Maybe because we know each other on this board, we could try to assume the best of each other. But that can't be generalized. Assuming the best of people who have made poor decisions that have killed people is part of what got us here. "Assuming the best" seems to be saved for the police officers, while those same officers "assume the worst" of POC.

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Might sound silly but for boots-on-the-ground perspectives from individual officers, check out TikTok. Yes, I'm being serious. If you're not seeing officers speak out, then you're probably need to look for them. Try #copsontiktok, #officerstiktok, etc. Today, my feed was full of officers denouncing the officers' actions and calling it murder.

 

Thanks. I could use a 'pick me up'.

[J-rap]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Bullshit. Anyone else would already be in cuffs. They know prosecuting and convicting an LEO against the winds of "ALLL SIDERS" is an uphill battle. Only LEOs and the wealthy get this kind of kid-glove treatment. Those 'technicalities' and 'motivations' are overlooked or dismissed as irrelevant for everyone else.

Well, I agree with you.  Believe me.  But I don't know enough about the system to understand all of this...  so I'm just saying what I heard on the news.  (I live there, and actually see some of what's going on from my window.)

[Laurie]

3 hours ago, Plum said:

Surveillance footage of the arrest.

He towers over the police officers. I believe that had a factor in this. At one point in the body cam footage, three officers are on Floyd. Once he’s down and they have that many officers there to help, he could have had his feet tied and put in the back of the car. Instead, for whatever reason, kneeling on his neck was the decision. Even while he stopped arguing, even when he stopped moving, even when he stopped breathing. The EMTs said he had no pulse in the ambulance.  
 

I have been mislead by media reports before, but I don’t see how this is anything but what we witnessed. He was already on the ground and subdued. It should have been end of story right there.  

 

I hadn't seen this video before.  Now that I've seen it,  I don't know if this is a murder or a drug overdose.  The man didn't look steady on his feet to me, and having stomach pain and breathing problems could indicate that what he needed was an immediate dose of naloxone instead of a knee on his neck.  

I was 100% willing to believe that George Floyd died because of the police officer until I saw this surveillance video.  It won't bring him back to his family, but I hope there's an autopsy report soon.  

[Carol in Cal.]

Larger question is about local police culture, imo.

This was murder.  (Expletiving) murder.  Clear cut, not defensible, utterly unacceptable.

And it happened in a context that includes another extremely clear cut killing.  Philando Castile.   Legally carrying a concealed gun, which he disclosed to the officer who pulled him over (for basically nothing) in exactly the way the NRA would tell you to do, hands on the steering wheel.  Officer tells him to get out his license and registration, he discloses about the gun, but he's supposed to get the license, darned if he does, darned if he doesn't, officer shoots him.  7 times.  And is exonerated (but thankfully fired.  But still.  Exonerated.)

Seems like a specific police culture there that is OTT, hair trigger, OOC, unacceptable.  

In addition to murder charges, there needs to be a high level level root and branch change to this culture.  This is unAmerican and completely unacceptable and very dangerous to all.  Entirely new leadership, and a great deal of personnel turnover are needed immediately.  I live in a city that used to be more or less like this and was changed by a strong, effective police chief.  It can be done, and it must be done.  This is (another rather strong expletive.)  

And again, murder.  Without question.  

[Carol in Cal.]

14 minutes ago, Laurie said:

I hadn't seen this video before.  Now that I've seen it,  I don't know if this is a murder or a drug overdose.  The man didn't look steady on his feet to me, and having stomach pain and breathing problems could indicate that what he needed was an immediate dose of naloxone instead of a knee on his neck.  

I was 100% willing to believe that George Floyd died because of the police officer until I saw this surveillance video.  It won't bring him back to his family, but I hope there's an autopsy report soon.  

I disagree.

He was sitting against a wall with handcuffs on, and the officers appear to have told him to get up.

I can tell you for sure, *I* couldn't have gotten up and walked steadily from that vantage point.  At one point it looked like they were pulling his cuffed hands up behind his back, which is pretty painful, too.  

[AbcdeDooDah]

58 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Thanks. I could use a 'pick me up'.

My phone doesn't like to keep windows open so it will be slow-going but I'll add some links here 

https://vm.tiktok.com/KDKhLh/

https://vm.tiktok.com/KDWo8c/

https://vm.tiktok.com/KD7tSB/ 

https://vm.tiktok.com/KU8aNt/

https://vm.tiktok.com/KUMyMJ/

Edited May 29, 2020 by AbcdeDooDah

[J-rap]

A friend of mine here worked with George Floyd for awhile at a homeless shelter.  I just looked up the homeless shelter web page, and this is what it posted:

"We are shocked and deeply saddened by the death of George Floyd. George worked at The Salvation Army’s Harbor Light shelter facility in 2017 and early into 2018. It takes a special type of person to work in an emergency shelter, where every day you are surrounded by stories of heartbreak and brokenness. George, like the many other shelter workers in our community, had a heart for people and our community. This tragic incident is symptomatic of much deeper racial and socio-economic issues in our community. At the Salvation Army we believe that we are all created in God’s image with priceless worth and dignity - George was no different in this. We must come together as a community and wrestle with these deeper issues and the Salvation Army is committed to helping to foster that dialogue. We are praying for peace and justice."

[Liz CA]

On 5/26/2020 at 6:58 PM, CuriousMomof3 said:

It's also Farrar so she might know something we don't know, like there is some step they need to take before arrest to make the charges stick.

 

I thought there were videos? I haven't watched any but why is this not a manslaughter charge right away? I am just throwing all my frustrated questions at you or anyone in the know. 

 I suppose I should be asking a criminal attorney.   

[Liz CA]

2 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Larger question is about local police culture, imo.

This was murder.  (Expletiving) murder.  Clear cut, not defensible, utterly unacceptable.

And it happened in a context that includes another extremely clear cut killing.  Philando Castile.   Legally carrying a concealed gun, which he disclosed to the officer who pulled him over (for basically nothing) in exactly the way the NRA would tell you to do, hands on the steering wheel.  Officer tells him to get out his license and registration, he discloses about the gun, but he's supposed to get the license, darned if he does, darned if he doesn't, officer shoots him.  7 times.  And is exonerated (but thankfully fired.  But still.  Exonerated.)

Seems like a specific police culture there that is OTT, hair trigger, OOC, unacceptable.  

In addition to murder charges, there needs to be a high level level root and branch change to this culture.  This is unAmerican and completely unacceptable and very dangerous to all.  Entirely new leadership, and a great deal of personnel turnover are needed immediately.  I live in a city that used to be more or less like this and was changed by a strong, effective police chief.  It can be done, and it must be done.  This is (another rather strong expletive.)  

And again, murder.  Without question.  

 

Very true. My mind also goes in the direction of "aren't there assessments (MHA) anymore? Not only upon admission to the academy but periodically thereafter? 

I asked about manslaughter in my post but just realized this should be prosecuted as murder if I am getting the distinctions correct.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Liz CA