Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[Gromovnik]

Who said that Floyd was a saint? Are black people requred to be saints in order to be allowed to live?

[Abdülmecid I]

Don't you know cookie? Black people can do no wrong. Floyd put a knife to a pregnant woman's stomach, but it's ok. He's a saint cause he was black. This girl tried to murder someone, and said she would. Criminal? Nope. Victim.

Judson Albahm pointed a BB gun specifically designed to look like a real one at a cops's head. Supid? Nope. He was slightly brown so hero.

Peton Ham did the same thing, and had a knife he was pointing at the cops while making threats. Also hero because skin color

Anthony Thompson Jr had a gun in school in threatened the cops with it after he abused his grlfriend. Monster? Nope. Angel of the innocent because he is black.


The only person on that list that did not pose a threat to the cops is Adam Toledo.

1. George Floyd did not threaten a pregnant woman with a knife.

2. Peyton Ham was a blue-eyed (I think) white teenager. From the people listed there, less than half were in fact blacks.

3. The police has retracted its earlier claim that the bullet came from Thompson's gun.

4. Protesting over the unnecessary death does not mean that you believe they were angels.

5. Legally speaking, in most countries, your police record is irrelevant to whether a suspect should be shot or not by law enforcement agents. Morally speaking, I believe most of the society shares this sentiment.

[Cookiegod]

Legally speaking, in most countries, your police record is irrelevant to whether a suspect should be shot or not by law enforcement agents. Morally speaking, I believe most of the society shares this sentiment.

That's the thing though isn't it?

US society is hopelessly overmilitarised, including the police driving around tanks. We can continue and point out that the US police isn't anyone's friend, as exemplified by Lozito vs NYC, where it was clarified that if a deranged serial killer runs at you with a knife and tries to stab you, police have no duty whatsoever to protect you and can just watch whilst doing nothing.

We could also simply point to the fact that social upwards mobility is borderline impossible in the US, and that the extreme inequality is reason enough for a lot of the crime.

But none of the systemic issues can have any influence on the individual cases, of, say, a girl being charged with a knife. Tasers are not an option in such a situation, and when it comes to weighing risks, the life of the attacked has to take precedence over the life of the attacker. In my book at least.

So personally I have no trouble with siding with the cop in such a case. I have far more trouble understanding the need to weaken a valid case (systemic inequality and violence) by inadvertently advocating peoples right to stab each other.

[Sir Adrian]

I think the main problems are the absolutely retarded justice system that at the most extreme can have an ex car salesman sentence you and x number of yobos fresh from the wheat field determine your guilt, the complete lack of background checks and police surveillance of gun owners and the abject lack of training most US police have in situations like these.

1. George Floyd did not threaten a pregnant woman with a knife.

2. Peyton Ham was a blue-eyed (I think) white teenager. From the people listed there, less than half were in fact blacks.

3. The police has retracted its earlier claim that the bullet came from Thompson's gun.

4. Protesting over the unnecessary death does not mean that you believe they were angels.

5. Legally speaking, in most countries, your police record is irrelevant to whether a suspect should be shot or not by law enforcement agents. Morally speaking, I believe most of the society shares this sentiment.

1. A random reporter from USA Today saying "because I said so" is not proof or a counter-argument.

2. Whatever. My point stands.

3. Nobody said anything about a bullet. He had a gun pointed at the cops.

4. Have you even bothered to read the other posts? I guess not.

5. Nobody mentioned anything about police record. Nice strawman though.

[Cope]

The guilty verdict does not address systemic racism. It addresses Chauvin's technical failings as a police officer - and at a stretch the institution that made it possible for him to use a questionable technique in a poor way.

Floyd could have been of Chinese or Indian or Hungarian or Moroccan background for all that matters. And I can already see pundits lining up to single Chauvin out as a bad apple to protect the institution. Whether that plays out broadly enough to satisfy those who accuse the department (and the institution of policing in general) of systemic racism remains to be seen.

By finding Chauvin guilty of murder, the jury did more than make a decision regarding his "technical failings as a police officer"; they also unanimously agreed that he acted with malice. Given the ambiguity of the evidence regarding intent, the speed with which the verdict was reached, the immense attention the case received and the location of the trial, it isn't a stretch to suppose that the jury wasn't entirely focused on the facts.

Of course the conviction is only really the end of the beginning. The next phase will be sentencing, and after that, the likely appeals. It wouldn't be wholly surprising if eventually there was a similar outcome to the Pell case.

1. George Floyd did not threaten a pregnant woman with a knife.

Correct. Floyd pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and was alleged to have held up a woman at gun point.

5. Legally speaking, in most countries, your police record is irrelevant to whether a suspect should be shot or not by law enforcement agents. Morally speaking, I believe most of the society shares this sentiment.

For the US, see the standard of objective reasonableness set out by Graham v. Connor. Officers are entitled to take the "severity of the crime at issue" into consideration when judging necessary use of force, but not the suspect's "police record" (by which I assume you mean criminal record). So that's not particularly relevant in the Floyd case, but it was relevant in the Blake case.

[Lord Thesaurian]

1. A random reporter from USA Today saying "because I said so" is not proof or a counter-argument.

It’s actually even more ridiculous than that. The “fact check” claims the story is false because it was evidently accompanied by a mis attributed photo in a social media post. But Abdul is right. Floyd didn’t threaten a woman with a knife, so far as we know. He did it with a gun.

As Complainant Henriquez looked out the front window, she observed a black male dressed in a blue uniform who told her that he was with the water department. As Complainant Henriquez opened the door, she immediately realized that this person was not with the water department and attempted to close the door. However, this male held the door open and prevented her from doing so. At this time, a black Ford Explorer pulled up in front of the Complainants' residence and five other black males exited this vehicle and proceeded to the front door. The largest of these suspects forced his way into the residence, placed a pistol against the complainant's abdomen, and forced her into the living room area of the residence. This large suspect then proceeded to search the residence while another armed suspect guarded the complainant, who was struck in the head and side areas by this second armed suspect with his pistol after she screamed for help. As the suspects looked through the residence, they demanded to know where the drugs and money were and Complainant Henriquez advised them that there were no such things in the residence. The suspects then took some jewelry along with the complainant's cell phone before they fled the scene in the black Ford Explorer, whose license plate was written down by a neighbor who witnessed the suspects exiting the vehicle and entering the complainants' residence. (Note: One of the suspects, (specifically the second armed suspect who was left guarding Complainant Henriquez, was inadvertently left behind inside the complainants' residence by the other suspects after he decided to leave her and search one of the rooms but managed to flee the scene on foot.)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Floyd was arrested 9 times between 1997 and 2007 on drug and theft charges. He was a violent junkie felon whose addiction and lifestyle led him to the place where he died, fentanyl and meth in his system, in his car and in the squad car where he had a meltdown and violently resisted arrest, compelling officers to restrain him. The greatest tragedy is not that he died as he lived, but that incompetent police officers like Chauvin turned him into a martyr and symbol for civil rights.

[Abdülmecid I]

1. A random reporter from USA Today saying "because I said so" is not proof or a counter-argument.

2. Whatever. My point stands.

3. Nobody said anything about a bullet. He had a gun pointed at the cops.

4. Have you even bothered to read the other posts? I guess not.

5. Nobody mentioned anything about police record. Nice strawman though.

1. The journalists cites the police report (linked in .pdf format in the article), where no mention of the victim's pregnancy is made and where it is stated that it was not Floyd who injured her.

2. How does your point stand about him being black and the claim that the victims are idealised because they were black stand, when the majority of them were not black?

3. Citation needed. No video footage has been released yet and the police only released information about an officer allegedly getting shot by the suspect. That bit was later retracted.

4. Feel free to quote them.

5. Pretty sure you did, when you mentioned (incorrectly) Floyd's criminal past. Why did you think it was relevant in the verdict about Floyd's murder?

It’s actually even more ridiculous than that. The “fact check” claims the story is false because it was evidently accompanied by a mis attributed photo in a social media post.

Nope, the article is actually addressing the rumour that Floyd assaulted a pregnant woman. The issue was not just with the incorrectly attributed photo. Symbols are made because of specific actions, not their overall record. The same principle applies for all historical figures, including the Founding Fathers, whose record, ranging from violence and vandalism to slavery and the establishment of a 2nd class system, dwarfs the felonies of Floyd and those of most drug addicts. For another example, appreciating the efforts of Martin Luther doesn't mean that you also honour his hysterical Antisemitism.

[Sir Adrian]

1. See above

2. So there is no police racism. Great.

3. See police report

4. Go back one page. You can do it. I believe in you.

5. George Floyd wasn't shot and I was talking about victimizing criminals not whether a criminal past is justification for being shot by the police. You're trying to strawman this into something completely different.

[Muizer]

Officers are entitled to take the "severity of the crime at issue" into consideration when judging necessary use of force, but not the suspect's "police record" (by which I assume you mean criminal record). So that's not particularly relevant in the Floyd case, but it was relevant in the Blake case.

The scale of severity used for sentencing is not a valid proxy for necessary use of force though.

[Ludicus]

The crowd broke into a familiar and ageless protest chant, “The people, united, will never be defeated.



Let me get straight to the point: a significant part of the American population is so racist that they even refuse to accept the existence of systemic racism in their own country.
Systemic Racism Stain On Nation's Soul: Joe Biden After ...

The President called for "confronting head on systemic racism and the racial disparities that exist in policing and our criminal justice system.

[Cope]

The scale of severity used for sentencing is not a valid proxy for necessary use of force though.

I explicitly said that that the suspect's criminal record does not form part of the "severity of the crime at issue" factor of the GvC test.

[Abdülmecid I]

1. See above

2. So there is no police racism. Great.

3. See police report

4. Go back one page. You can do it. I believe in you.

5. George Floyd wasn't shot and I was talking about victimizing criminals not whether a criminal past is justification for being shot by the police. You're trying to strawman this into something completely different.

1. Yes, Lord Thesaurus read the police report, linked in the article I cited, and confirmed that you were wrong.

2. Maybe there is maybe there isn't, I don't have an opinion on this issue, but I don't think we can establish that with 5 random examples. However, since you yourself used these examples to argue that the victims were honoured solely because of their skin colour, are you now retracting this claim?

3. I read it. It mentions a struggle and an injury not caused by the suspect's gun. So, again, do you have a source about Thompson pointing his weapon at the officers?

4. I searched the entire thread. The word "saint" is mentioned in relation to Trump ordering the violent dispersal of a peaceful protest, in order to attend a photo opportunity at St. John's church and many times ironically against Obama and Floyd. I notice a pattern here...

5. So, criminals shouldn't be considered victims, if they are murdered? That's a morally subjective matter, but I am confident that in most legal systems, murdering a fellow citizen is always condemned, regardless of the target's past crimes.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Nope, the article is actually addressing the rumour that Floyd assaulted a pregnant woman. The issue was not just with the incorrectly attributed photo. Symbols are made because of specific actions, not their overall record. The same principle applies for all historical figures, including the Founding Fathers, whose record, ranging from violence and vandalism to slavery and the establishment of a 2nd class system, dwarfs the felonies of Floyd and those of most drug addicts. For another example, appreciating the efforts of Martin Luther doesn't mean that you also honour his hysterical Antisemitism.

The implication of both your objections and the “fact check” is that the incident did not occur/Floyd was not directly responsible. He is the “largest of these suspects” named in the report. He was arrested, charged and convicted for the crime in question. Floyd’s “specific action” is resisting arrest and getting restrained by a police officer who accidentally killed him in the process. “What about the Founding Fathers and Marin Luther” is the most comical bait in my recent memory. What next? “Jesus was an incel who vandalized a market in the temple?” “Mohammed was a child rapist?” These inane comparisons and attempts to construe inconvenient facts as “mostly false” further evidence the contrived canonization of a junkie criminal whose noteworthiness is purely a result of that contrivance, unlike the Founders or Luther.

[Cookiegod]

5. So, criminals shouldn't be considered victims, if they are murdered? That's a morally subjective matter, but I am confident that in most legal systems, murdering a fellow citizen is always condemned, regardless of the target's past crimes.

Abdül I asked you before and I'll ask you again. Were Blake or that 16yo girl now murdered tho?

[Abdülmecid I]

Abdül I asked you before and I'll ask you again. Were Blake or that 16yo girl now murdered tho?

When did you make that question? Anyway, Blake wasn't killed, from what I understand, his shooting was justified. About the teenager, from the video, I think the officer acted correctly. Bryant charged the other girl holding a knife, shooting her was the only way to prevent her from injuring the other person.

[Cookiegod]

When did you make that question? Anyway, Blake wasn't killed, from what I understand, his shooting was justified. About the teenager, from the video, I think the officer acted correctly. Bryant charged the other girl holding a knife, shooting her was the only way to prevent her from injuring the other person.

thank you, then we're in full agreement.

[Muizer]

I explicitly said that that the suspect's criminal record does not form part of the "severity of the crime at issue" factor of the GvC test.

I was referring to the part of your argument you earlier phrased as

A suspect's charges are relevant to the standard of "objective reasonableness" used to determine whether a use of force was/is proportionate. The more extreme the allegations, the more justified the use of force in apprehending the suspect.

I'm just saying that the severity of the allegation should not be measured by the sentence the crime merits. One only has to look at the list of crimes and their class/degree to see this could lead to inexplicable discrepancies.

[Cope]

I was referring to the part of your argument you earlier phrased as

I'm just saying that the severity of the allegation should not be measured by the sentence the crime merits. One only has to look at the list of crimes and their class/degree to see this could lead to inexplicable discrepancies.

Considering the "severity of the crime at issue" is central to determining the importance of apprehending or neutralizing a suspect (and hence in determining the appropriate use of force). Officers aren't measuring the severity of the allegation according to sentencing guidelines, they're considering it - along with a variety of other factors - with regard to the potential threat that the suspect poses. For instance, officers knowing that Jacob Blake was wanted for rape is a relevant factor in explaining why they felt it was integral that he was prevented from escaping.

[Sir Adrian]

1. Yes, Lord Thesaurus read the police report, linked in the article I cited, and confirmed that you were wrong.

2. Maybe there is maybe there isn't, I don't have an opinion on this issue, but I don't think we can establish that with 5 random examples. However, since you yourself used these examples to argue that the victims were honoured solely because of their skin colour, are you now retracting this claim?

3. I read it. It mentions a struggle and an injury not caused by the suspect's gun. So, again, do you have a source about Thompson pointing his weapon at the officers?

4. I searched the entire thread. The word "saint" is mentioned in relation to Trump ordering the violent dispersal of a peaceful protest, in order to attend a photo opportunity at St. John's church and many times ironically against Obama and Floyd. I notice a pattern here...

5. So, criminals shouldn't be considered victims, if they are murdered? That's a morally subjective matter, but I am confident that in most legal systems, murdering a fellow citizen is always condemned, regardless of the target's past crimes.

1. Rereread his post. You may have misunderstood some of the words there.

2. Then why are you, and others, in here trying to establish it?

3. See point 1.

4. I never said anything about saint. Half the posts in this thread boil down to "Floyd is a folk hero who dindu nuffin and was killed by the evil racist police because evil racist". Saying you didn't "find" anything is the definition of arguing in bad faith

5. Who was murdered? Do you know the definition of murder? Floyd died because he was drug dealer and a particularly negligent cop. All the teens listed on the previous page, except for one, were armed and directly threatening the victim or police officers. Could the police have used rubber bullets and shot the teens in the shoulder and leg? Yes. But this has got to do with training and equipment and the complete and utter failure of corrupt governors like Cuomo, Newsom and Walz to provide either. The blame for any police shooting that is not straight up premeditated lies entirely with the corrupt governors that choose to divert the money from the police into their cronies and backers bank accounts.

[Muizer]

Considering the "severity of the crime at issue" is central to determining the importance of apprehending or neutralizing a suspect (and hence in determining the appropriate use of force). Officers aren't measuring the severity of the allegation according to sentencing guidelines, they're considering it - along with a variety of other factors - with regard to the potential threat that the suspect poses. For instance, officers knowing that Jacob Blake was wanted for rape is a relevant factor in explaining why they felt it was integral that he was prevented from escaping.

As far as I recall he was wanted for something in the relational/personal sphere. Such perpetrators do not generally pose a high risk to law enforcement or society in general. It would be bad if law enforcement went in expecting the need to use violence just because they ticked the 'rapist' box, and it would also be bad if people invoked it to excuse escalating violence afterwards.