Black Lives Matter
-
@barbarian said in US Politics:
The only area I have an issue is I think the author goes a bit too far on the 'Floyd was a bad man' stuff. IMO people aren't celebrating Floyd himself, he's just become symbolic of something far larger. His background is pretty much irrelevant. Bringing it up in the manner the author does implies he somehow deserved his fate.
Have had this discussion a couple of times, and I agree with the premise that he didn't deserve it, we have courts and laws for that, but they are mutually exclusive comments.
Did he deserve to die like that?
Was he (possibly) a violent misogynist druggie?They shouldn't be tied together.
Derek Chauvin was no angel either and had "history" and I doubt that he will survive prison but this is interesting:
Chauvin still stands to benefit from a pension partially funded by taxpayers. While a number of state laws allow for the forfeiture of pensions for those employees convicted of felony crimes related to their work, this is not the case in Minnesota.Chauvin would likely be eligible for annual payments in the ballpark of US$50,000 (A$73,000) a year or more if he chose to start receiving them at age 55
That just feels wrong.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@barbarian said in US Politics:
The only area I have an issue is I think the author goes a bit too far on the 'Floyd was a bad man' stuff. IMO people aren't celebrating Floyd himself, he's just become symbolic of something far larger. His background is pretty much irrelevant. Bringing it up in the manner the author does implies he somehow deserved his fate.
That is a valid concern.
I think where people are getting riled up is that it seems hypocritical to use his murder as a reason to tear down statues of people long gone because of flaws in their distant past..yet we are supposed to ignore the very recent past of George or the current present of folk destroying public property on camera without apparent consequence.
I think we can all agree that the original concerns out of the Floyd killing, and others, are valid. And that lots of groups on all sides, be it anarchists leftists white supremacists and just plain crooks, are all using the protest as an excuse to advance their own agendas
-
And now a 27 year old black man ends up shot dead after a scuffle with police. He was running away and appears to have been shot in the back. He was found asleep in his car in a Wendy's carpark and after over 20 minutes of discussion he went berserk when the cops wanted to cuff him. After everything that is going on I can't believe these police are still making these decisions. He had no firearm, he was running away after resisting arrest after what I would consider to be a low level infringement, so risk to the police officers was low. And he is dead. That is crazy
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
And now a 27 year old black man ends up shot dead after a scuffle with police. He was running away and appears to have been shot in the back. He was found asleep in his car in a Wendy's carpark and after over 20 minutes of discussion he went berserk when the cops wanted to cuff him. After everything that is going on I can't believe these police are still making these decisions. He had no firearm, he was running away after resisting arrest after what I would consider to be a low level infringement, so risk to the police officers was low. And he is dead. That is crazy
Not defending the officer and don't know the full law on this, but please include all context.
You missed out this part,
"Brooks resisted and stole a Taser from an officer, they said. Brooks ran from the officers, and at one point, aimed the Taser at police before the officer fired his weapon, "Private citizens, and licensed Concealed Carry gun owners, would face no charges if they used their weapon because they were assaulted and had a taser gun fired at me by an inebriated person. Madness
It is now possible (but not certain) the cop could face murder charges. This will blow back on Democrats hard. Police unions will abandon them in droves.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
And now a 27 year old black man ends up shot dead after a scuffle with police. He was running away and appears to have been shot in the back. He was found asleep in his car in a Wendy's carpark and after over 20 minutes of discussion he went berserk when the cops wanted to cuff him. After everything that is going on I can't believe these police are still making these decisions. He had no firearm, he was running away after resisting arrest after what I would consider to be a low level infringement, so risk to the police officers was low. And he is dead. That is crazy
You missed out this part,
"Brooks resisted and stole a Taser from an officer, they said. Brooks ran from the officers, and at one point, aimed the Taser at police before the officer fired his weapon, "Ran from the officers firing a taser. I don't know about you but I think there is a big difference between running at officers and running away. And a taser is not a lethal firearm, aiming when running and drunk is probably tricky. I'm not saying this guy didn't deserve to go to jail, but if you think in this instance that he deserved to get shot dead then we will have to agree to disagree
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@Frank You missed this bit : "officials said"
after officials said he resisted arrest and stole an officer's Taser.
@Frank said in US Politics:
please include all context.
The officials are whom I wonder?
Watch the video and listen.
-
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
What an awesome dude.
Have you read any of his books? I'm looking for a recommendation, have watched a few interviews in the last couple years and read 'basic economics' last year which I thought was very eye opening. Just trying to choose the next one to read.
-
Contrast this experience with something I witnessed first hand. Week one of lockdown a polynesian guy was caught by the cops driving near our house at 2 in the morning. He stopped his car and took off on foot, chased by the eagle helicopter and a couple of officers. The guy ran onto the reserve behind our house and ended up hiding on a low part of our roof. He was tracked by two officers and a dog. After a tense verbal exchange the guy was coaxed off the roof and grabbed by the dog before being taken away. If I lived in Atlanta I don't think the police would have been that patient with him, he would have ended up shot just like that guy sleeping in his car
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
Watch the video and listen.
I did. So the police handcuffed a guy and shot him in the back. My cynicism was about the word "officials".
So is resisting arrest an instant capital punishment? It appears so these days.
It would be interesting to see what police procedure is on that. The majority of these cases are related to resisting arrest. Maybe that's change that could be brought in, if someone is resisting arrest to the point where it is becoming dangerous to themselves but not an immediate danger to police or public maybe let them go, call backup and follow the suspect. Or would that just lead to more people resisting arrest and increased police fatalities?
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
Watch the video and listen.
I did. So the police handcuffed a guy and shot him in the back. My cynicism was about the word "officials".
So is resisting arrest an instant capital punishment? It appears so these days.
It would be interesting to see what police procedure is on that. The majority of these cases are related to resisting arrest. Maybe that's change that could be brought in, if someone is resisting arrest to the point where it is becoming dangerous to themselves but not an immediate danger to police or public maybe let them go, call backup and follow the suspect. Or would that just lead to more people resisting arrest and increased police fatalities?
If the officers are in no immediate danger I think there is no way they can shoot. He was running away from them, he wasn't on a rampage. Call for backup and chase the guy on foot
-
@Rembrandt When everybody is armed it is obviously more difficult. I've never tried it but shooting someone with you hands behind your back must be a bit tricky.
Basically agree with you but you just remove the guns and it becomes more like @canefan home situation above.
Edit and the post after from him.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
If the officers are in no immediate danger I think there is no way they can shoot. He was running away from them, he wasn't on a rampage. Call for backup and chase the guy on foot
I'm likely wrong but isn't that policy in New Zealand during a high speed chase? If its getting too dangerous to pursue then they leave it.
I don't know how that would go from a litigious point of view if the suspect then moved on to attack a member of the public after the police failed to enact an arrest. Would actually be really interesting to see what their procedures are..no doubt the worlds top quality media agencies will be on the case and will help inform the general public rather than try and throw as much gasoline on the fire as possible.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
If the officers are in no immediate danger I think there is no way they can shoot. He was running away from them, he wasn't on a rampage. Call for backup and chase the guy on foot
I'm likely wrong but isn't that policy in New Zealand during a high speed chase? If its getting too dangerous to pursue then they leave it.
I don't know how that would go from a litigious point of view if the suspect then moved on to attack a member of the public after the police failed to enact an arrest. Would actually be really interesting to see what their procedures are..no doubt the worlds top quality media agencies will be on the case and will help inform the general public rather than try and throw as much gasoline on the fire as possible.
The car chase one is a no win, if they speed and kill someone or they speed and kill themselves. After talking to this dude for 25 minutes I think it was clear he wasn't a serious criminal. There is no justification to shoot this guy in the back when he was running away, taser or no taser
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
If the officers are in no immediate danger I think there is no way they can shoot. He was running away from them, he wasn't on a rampage. Call for backup and chase the guy on foot
I'm likely wrong but isn't that policy in New Zealand during a high speed chase? If its getting too dangerous to pursue then they leave it.
I don't know how that would go from a litigious point of view if the suspect then moved on to attack a member of the public after the police failed to enact an arrest. Would actually be really interesting to see what their procedures are..no doubt the worlds top quality media agencies will be on the case and will help inform the general public rather than try and throw as much gasoline on the fire as possible.
The car chase one is a no win, if they speed and kill someone or they speed and kill themselves. After talking to this dude for 25 minutes I think it was clear he wasn't a serious criminal. There is no justification to shoot this guy in the back when he was running away, taser or no taser
I agree based on the info that is in currently. Did both police bodycams fall off? Being at a Wendy's (that I see has now been burnt to the ground) Id imagine there might yet be some more video footage to come out.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
I'm likely wrong but isn't that policy in New Zealand during a high speed chase? If its getting too dangerous to pursue then they leave it.
Debatable whether they do:
International pursuit-related research reports have been important to establish whether
all safety factors have been considered in the New Zealand policy. However, much of
the research is American based, and care must be taken in drawing comparisons with
New Zealand, as issues such as differences in our roading network, the American
proclivity for litigation against both organisations and private individuals, the policing
environment and operational context is markedly different. It is also important to
remember that often the research does not take into account the "increased risk to the
public if pursuits are discontinued and either serious criminals are allowed to escape or
drunk drivers are not intercepted or arrested."5There are 66 pages of that report which are sort of relevant given the number of chases we seem to have. In the US they could just shoot you of course.
-
I would think the only justification for using deadly force is when there is a serious threat to police or public safety. This latest case doesn't meet either of those, not by a long shot.
I'm amazed at how many (mainly) conservatives I am seeing putting their support behind the police in this one. This is basically state sanctioned violence if you think it is OK for cops to kill people under these circumstances. Weren't all those conservatives against the state having too much power? Doesn't that form the basis of their gun ownership arguments? Why would they be OK with giving police the power to kill people when they see fit?
There just seems to be absolutely no duty of care from the police over there.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
But the question is what is this something "far larger". Is it real?
Yes. The widespread nature of protests clearly indicated this has tapped into something deep-seated and powerful.
You can debate how we came to be here and why, and what the solutions are going forward. But clearly there is very large group of people in the US who still see issues with the treatment of black Americans. That fact can't be denied.