Seattle
Valued Senior Member
They will be tried together in August. You're going to make Vociferous mad with you not being better informed!
George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
Thanks. I read after posting this thread that last year when this initially happened, they all pointed the finger at one another.
You're going to make Vociferous mad with you not being better informed!
Meh, he'll get over it.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Past behavior tells me he won't.
Not at all.
I'm suggesting it would be inappropriate to threaten to slit his throat, or to go ahead and do that.
Of course, you only said you'd do it "if I could get away with it". What do you think your chances would be of getting away with slitting a cop's throat, even if he was "murdering" somebody else? What would you argue in court to defend your own deliberate murder of the cop? How do you think the argument would go that your response was a reasonable and proportionate reaction to witnessing the cop's actions?
There's certainly something seriously fucked up here. If you're serious about wanting to murder cops, I'd say that's fucked up.
Actually, given the opportunity, I might call the cops. I do not assume that all cops are murderous thugs, or that they would all condone murder by one of their own. I am confident that many cops are law-abiding and want to do the right thing.
I might also try to talk to the cop doing the murdering, to dissuade him from taking that particular action.
Other than that, I think that using a phone to film the incident would be a good idea, as was done in the Floyd case. The aim there would be to try to ensure appropriate accountability after the fact, if nothing could be done on the spot to prevent the crime. I would certainly urge as many people as possible to act as witnesses to the incident.
What I certainly would not do would be to attack the cop with a deadly weapon of my own.
Exactly what I would do might depend very much on whether by my own actions I might be endangering myself or other people.
Almost certainly, flying into a murderous rage of my own would be counterproductive, no matter what the circumstances were.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
About 35-40 years ago , when I lived in Chicago, I was walking home late one night after dark.
As I passed an alley, I saw 2 policemen with one of the local teens. They had him down on the pavement of the alley and one had his foot on the kid's neck. So, I paused and watched, whereupon, one of the cops shouted: "What do you want?". I replied, "nothing, just being a witness." Whereupon, they picked the youth up and threw him into the back of their squad car, and drove off. (I guess that they did not want a witness?)
upshot
It seems that that form of restraint has been used for a long time.
I knew a local cop from veterans group therapy. After group, we went to a local bar for a drink. I quit going to group, but still met the members at the bar after group. So, when I met him at the bar, I told him of the incident.
And, he said: "So, you're the witness" and I asked if the kid was ok.
He said that the kid was fine, and that they had imposed a 10 pm curfew on the gang members after a shooting, and that the kid was out after curfew, so they wanted to scare him by ruffing him up to show that their word was law.
As I passed an alley, I saw 2 policemen with one of the local teens. They had him down on the pavement of the alley and one had his foot on the kid's neck. So, I paused and watched, whereupon, one of the cops shouted: "What do you want?". I replied, "nothing, just being a witness." Whereupon, they picked the youth up and threw him into the back of their squad car, and drove off. (I guess that they did not want a witness?)
upshot
It seems that that form of restraint has been used for a long time.
I knew a local cop from veterans group therapy. After group, we went to a local bar for a drink. I quit going to group, but still met the members at the bar after group. So, when I met him at the bar, I told him of the incident.
And, he said: "So, you're the witness" and I asked if the kid was ok.
He said that the kid was fine, and that they had imposed a 10 pm curfew on the gang members after a shooting, and that the kid was out after curfew, so they wanted to scare him by ruffing him up to show that their word was law.
For fuck's sake. Forgive me my impatience here, but I'm not accustomed to communicating with people who, apparently, need absolutely fucking everything spelled out for them: My point was simply that the alleged "threatening crowd" were not simply addressing some guy; rather, they were addressing some guy who was in the process of murdering someone. People react--especially when they feel totally helpless to do anything--and they say things they might not ordinarily say. I'm not going to judge them too harshly, all things considered--and neither am I going to take their alleged "threats" as seriously as one might in wholly different circumstances, again, given the circumstances.
But you might consider volunteering your services to Chauvin's defense--that attorney seems a bit of a dullard. At first, I thought that was a part of his, uh, "strategy," but now I'm more inclined towards thinking he's just a crap attorney.
And most aren't inclined towards "suicide by cop," so acting would be ill-advised.
Not even gonna bother with the rest of that.
If that's your takeaway, your reading comprehension issues are much more serious than I had thought. (Also, I notice you didn't address the "advocacy" bit. Hilarious.)
Good for you. He'll likely be dead by that point, but whatever. And fortunately you're a white guy whom cops are more favorably disposed towards.
Wow. Thanks for the edumacation.
Last edited:
Also, care to point out precisely where I expressed this desire to "murder cops?" You've got a habit of making totally unwarranted assumptions, and it's a bit annoying, frankly.
This may not be pertinent to the George Floyd case, but it is very much relevant to the problems we have in the U.S. with police culture:
I'll let your baseless speculations and wild assumptions slide this time, and offer a freebie. If you wanna accuse me of something, why not simply go with the obvious? I like to antagonize people who annoy me. I know it's a bad habit and rather counterproductive, but, well, it's fun. And I'm sure that, often enough, it rises to the level of "flaming" proper, so...
Moving on. You're aware that we have a bit of a problem with cops standing by their fellow cops, even when they are clearly in the wrong, in the U.S., yes? No, #NotAllCops, but plenty enough. Hence the reluctance to ever call the cops for many here.
And, personally, I'm one of those. Once, a cop beat the shit out of me for having a seizure in a drug store, and bumping into some sort of display case (or something along those lines). Plenty of witnesses informed the cop that I was clearly having a seizure, but this did not deter him in any way. I didn't learn, because few years later, in another city, I called the cops on a belligerent, drunken neighbor who had put his fist through my front door--it (the fist) was intended for me, but fortunately I managed to close the door promptly enough. Unfortunately, I got a coked up cop who was a friend of this neighbor, apparently, so he beat the shit out of me, giving me a concussion and several months of pretty much unabated seizures.
Now, I've also had interactions with cops wherein they were actually quite helpful, but... I simply can't shake these other experiences. So there's no way in hell that I will ever call the cops whilst living in the U.S. ever again. Does this seem unreasonable to you? Statistically, perhaps I am at low risk--I mean, I am white, but I'm also epileptic, so for me, it seems a reasonable precaution.
I'll let your baseless speculations and wild assumptions slide this time, and offer a freebie. If you wanna accuse me of something, why not simply go with the obvious? I like to antagonize people who annoy me. I know it's a bad habit and rather counterproductive, but, well, it's fun. And I'm sure that, often enough, it rises to the level of "flaming" proper, so...
Moving on. You're aware that we have a bit of a problem with cops standing by their fellow cops, even when they are clearly in the wrong, in the U.S., yes? No, #NotAllCops, but plenty enough. Hence the reluctance to ever call the cops for many here.
And, personally, I'm one of those. Once, a cop beat the shit out of me for having a seizure in a drug store, and bumping into some sort of display case (or something along those lines). Plenty of witnesses informed the cop that I was clearly having a seizure, but this did not deter him in any way. I didn't learn, because few years later, in another city, I called the cops on a belligerent, drunken neighbor who had put his fist through my front door--it (the fist) was intended for me, but fortunately I managed to close the door promptly enough. Unfortunately, I got a coked up cop who was a friend of this neighbor, apparently, so he beat the shit out of me, giving me a concussion and several months of pretty much unabated seizures.
Now, I've also had interactions with cops wherein they were actually quite helpful, but... I simply can't shake these other experiences. So there's no way in hell that I will ever call the cops whilst living in the U.S. ever again. Does this seem unreasonable to you? Statistically, perhaps I am at low risk--I mean, I am white, but I'm also epileptic, so for me, it seems a reasonable precaution.
Because the US justice system has the presumption of innocence principle, I think it can be unfair to cast this case as the “white cop had it out for the black suspect.” While that could be true, the evidence by the prosecution hasn’t spelled that out or me. The jury can only deliberate on the facts and if there were multiple witnesses brought forth who testified to Chauvin having racist tendencies, then I would think differently. So, whether people dislike Chauvin or not, he deserves a fair trial. This doesn’t mean Chauvin isn’t a racist or jaded, but the prosecution hasn’t proven that.
That said, Floyd isn’t on trial. The defense wants the jury to believe that he would have died that day I guess(?) had the restraint position not been applied, by Chauvin and the other officers. Regardless, it doesn’t seem reasonable to believe that Chauvin had no other options to prevent Floyd’s death.
In the end, the judgement should be on what Chauvin did and didn’t do - experts feel he could have been saved. So even if you think Chauvin’s use of force was proper and reasonable, a man still died in his custody while he was restraining him. Are we to believe that a 20-year police officer hasn’t ever dealt with suspects who have ingested drugs on the day of arrest? Cops arrest people in the condition they’re in - and it seems like they’re trained on what to do in various situations. Real life vs classroom training is different but he has had 20 years on the job and it’s hard to believe that he has never dealt with drug addicts over dosing or acting erratic, due to the drugs.
Just my $.02 for today.
That said, Floyd isn’t on trial. The defense wants the jury to believe that he would have died that day I guess(?) had the restraint position not been applied, by Chauvin and the other officers. Regardless, it doesn’t seem reasonable to believe that Chauvin had no other options to prevent Floyd’s death.
In the end, the judgement should be on what Chauvin did and didn’t do - experts feel he could have been saved. So even if you think Chauvin’s use of force was proper and reasonable, a man still died in his custody while he was restraining him. Are we to believe that a 20-year police officer hasn’t ever dealt with suspects who have ingested drugs on the day of arrest? Cops arrest people in the condition they’re in - and it seems like they’re trained on what to do in various situations. Real life vs classroom training is different but he has had 20 years on the job and it’s hard to believe that he has never dealt with drug addicts over dosing or acting erratic, due to the drugs.
Just my $.02 for today.
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I'm sure he has dealt with them and they didn't die on him and therefore he probably didn't think George Floyd was going to die. Or at least that's one reasonable thing to consider.
He probably has had others under the influence tell him that they couldn't breathe, the cuffs were too tight, they're not comfortable in the back seat of a police car, they might be having a heart attack and it might have turned out that those were just excuses. Therefore he might not have taken George Floyd's comments seriously .
Thats the problem with "crying wolf". When it's real no one believes you. However I have no explanation for why he continued the restraint for so long. It wasn't necessary, it looks bad, it's not in his best interest, there were plenty of witnesses. I don't get it.
You said that under certain conditions you would "slit his throat, if I could get away with it." That's expressing a desire to murder cops.
And while I can see very narrow conditions under which that might be warranted, it is nevertheless a desire to kill cops under those conditions.
Agreed. For the purposes of this trial alone, that's not what the prosecution is arguing. They are arguing that Chauvin used excessive force and caused the death of a suspect.
At a larger level, though, the trial is indicative of the consistently worse outcomes that black people endure at the hands of white cops. Several other examples were listed in this thread.
Good points, billvon and Seattle.
There’s much to consider for the jury. Watching the news earlier and one panelist mentioned that a reporter in the courtroom observed that the jury was very attentive to the cardiologist who took the stand today. They were taking notes the entire time and seemed extremely interested. When it comes to juries, that could mean anything, though.
There’s much to consider for the jury. Watching the news earlier and one panelist mentioned that a reporter in the courtroom observed that the jury was very attentive to the cardiologist who took the stand today. They were taking notes the entire time and seemed extremely interested. When it comes to juries, that could mean anything, though.
How exactly is that an expression of a desire? One could say, "I would do (this), if I could get away with it," for just about any action, desirable or otherwise. It might be something one would do reluctantly, but does so out of a sense of obligation, for instance. Expression of intent is not the same as expression of desire.
The "getting away with it" aspect has everything to do with the perpetrator being a cop. It is not hard to imagine a scenario in which a non-cop is assaulting a person, and a witness feels compelled to intervene. Their chances of "getting away with it"--both in the legal sense, as well as the "not getting themselves killed" sense--are considerably higher. When it's a cop doing the killing, most are far reluctant to act defensively for obvious reasons, and this only compounds their distress, disgust, frustration, etc., making many say things they likely would not otherwise say. That's got nothing to do with desire.
Also, incidentally, you are making a rather curious assumption here--"kill cops?" Rather, we were discussing the matter of killing (or disabling) a cop--or, more appropriately, a murderer.
That "killing cops" nonsense is your (and James') strawman.
Right. You said that if you "saw some piece of shit cop murdering someone, I'd threaten to slit his throat--or I would slit his throat, if I could get away with it." Since there is more than one cop, and since you didn't say you'd do it only once and then change your mind on such things, you would do that any time you "saw some piece of shit cop murdering someone."
Again, there are narrow conditions under which that might be warranted. I can think of a few. But denying you said that is rather silly.
Where did I deny that I said that? I'm denying the "expression of a desire," as well the matter of turning a murderer, who happens to be a cop, into cops, generally.
Though I agree that there would be less confusion here had I simply said "piece of shit murdering someone."
Regardless, on the matter of the defense trying to portray the crowd of witnesses as "threatening": Do you agree that, while some made what ordinarily would be construed as "threats," there were mitigating circumstances that diminish the gravity of said threats, i.e., being a witness to a murder, and feeling utterly helpless and incapable of doing anything about it?
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
It wasn't "questioning", it was non-compliance, to the extent that an officer pulled his gun, for fear of what Floyd may be reaching for. Floyd didn't get out of the car voluntarily. He had to be dragged out. Anything that interferes with an officer in the performance of his duties is obstructing justice, which includes obstruction, resistance, or interference.
You need to watch that video again. Floyd was physically pulled out of the car and it took two officers to get him cuffed. Or are you just trolling?
I'm willing to bet that the jurors are shown the video enough to catch all the obvious resistance Floyd did. If they haven't been, the defense will certainly remedy that.
Threats of violence are crimes, not covered by the First Amendment.
Flying a flag is not an expressed threat of violence, no matter how much you may wish it were. It is thus a protected freedom of expression. The First Amendment doesn't restrict expression based on subjective interpretation.
Substitute a little learning for some of your passion.
Christ, man, you could have responded sooner! Now I've already far exceeded my weekly posting quota and am feeling thoroughly spent.
Anyways, something something about "immanence" and Brandenburg vs. Ohio goes here, I think, but as I said, I'm exhausted.
Also, slinging poo is every bit as acceptable as flinging poo--if I'm not mistaken, the English and them sorts would be more apt to use the former.