Calling All Liberal Race Baiters

[Skepdick]

as I say upthread: (it's) premature to call what happened murder (as legal construct or moral wrong)

You are conflating legality with wrongness. Which is why I said that Law is an (incomplete) codification of morality.

legally, the wrongness of chauvin's actions will be determined by a jury charged to assess his actions accordin' to the evidence, the circumstance, and law & precedent

No. The law doesn't determine "wrongness". The law determines guilt/culpability/law-violation etc.

The law only determines whether you are guilty of murder.
The law doesn't determine which behaviour must be codified/outlawed.

Society does that.

morally, it may very well be that while floyd's death is not a good thing, it may not be a wrong thing

It is a wrong thing! Even if it's not an illegal thing!

it violates the Primum non nocere principle. It should not happen!

it would be nice if every circumstance could be accounted for in advance, if there was a solution for every problematic encounter, but that's not possible

Just because we can't account for; or prevent all wrongs doesn't make them not-wrong.
Just because preventing ever murder is impossible doesn't suddenly render murder not-wrong.

chauvin kneelin' on floyd's throat may very well have been the best of all possible worlds

This is ass-backwards. Chauvin may well be innocent, but what happened is wrong!

It is not the best of all possible worlds because Police officers around the globe actually know of better ways!

[henry quirk]

You are conflating legality with wrongness.

no...clearly, I'm makin' a distinction between what is legal and what is moral, between what is deemed wrong by law and what is morally wrong


Police officers around the globe actually know of better ways!

you're a cop, yeah?

what would you have done in chauvin's place?

[Immanuel Can]

It's less useless than failing to recognise a problem!

That's a wash. There's no good recognizing a problem if you can't do a thing about it. You're no help to anybody, then...just an empty complainer.

[Skepdick]

That's a wash. There's no good recognizing a problem if you can't do a thing about it.

How do you know you can't do anything about a problem you don't even recognize?

You're no help to anybody, then...just an empty complainer.

Still more helpful than you... At least I can recognise problems.

You can't even do this much.

[commonsense]

Skepdick, I agree with all you say except there is one point which, while I don’t oppose it, I am actually wondering what your thoughts are and whether we should consider it further.

If the officer followed procedure in every detail and stayed completely within policy, is he innocent, as you said?

Certainly, to know, or be able to know, that a current procedure that came down from above and is part of a thorough training program—to know that that procedure could result in harm, is more than can reasonably be expected of most regular people, including frontline cops.

So the officer’s defense could be that he was just following procedure given to him by the higher-ups. He could point out that the people who wrote the policy are the ones who should know whether it could cause harm, and they should know that before putting it into training.

But I recall that Hitler’s henchmen used the just following orders defense and it did not get them off at trial. They seemed to sincerely think that they were innocent, but they were not excused for their actions in following Hitler’s policies.

Do you think that you, as a cop, and me, as an ex-corrections type, have a problem on our hands?

[SteveKlinko]

When you Race Bait the issue you are sinking to the lowest low of Depravity and Corruption that is at the heart of the Liberal/Media/Politician problem. Do you even know that "Kneeling on the Neck" like that was a standard Police technique in that city? Do you know that the technique was applied over 400 times to Black and White offenders since 2012? This is probably a bad Police technique now, since someone has died from it. But it was certainly not a Racist act by the Police. You incite hatred for the Police by making it a Racist act. You are down in the gutter with the worst Race Baiting Liberal/Media/Politicians.

So you are admitting that the police fucked up and that their technique is dangerous?

You are admitting that there is a problem and change is required.

I am glad to see you are coming to see things my way!

Coming around? I have always said that the Knee on Neck was probably a bad technique. Nothing to admit. But the issue is, was it a Racist Technique? The answer is absolutely No.

[henry quirk]

Police officers around the globe actually know of better ways!

so: what would you have done in chauvin's place?

[Skepdick]

Police officers around the globe actually know of better ways!

so: what would you have done in chauvin's place?

What Chauvin did (cut off respiratory/circulatory system) is only necessary in order to gain compliance/control over suspect.
Putting somebody in sleeper choke is an easy way to buy yourself the 10-15 seconds need to put the handcuffs on. And even then - we know that cutting off circulation for more than 4 minutes can result in brain damage - this is "common knowledge".

Which is why none of it makes sense. GF was already handcuffed. Chauvin stood on his neck for 8 minutes. What was his game plan exactly? More compliance? To what end?

But lets say he needed more compliance...
* Use 2nd pair of cuffs - link hands and feet.
* Joint-lock extremities.
* Use his centre of gravity against him (the dude's on his stomach)

At worst he could've treated him like an epileptic patient. Clear space around him - make sure he's not a harm to himself and stand back.

Where is he going to go if you cuff his legs?

Because the question still remains: what were you trying to achieve and how long was it supposed to take (because 8 minutes wasn't enough).

[Immanuel Can]

Still more helpful than you... At least I can recognise problems.

Well, I would say I'm offering much more than you are.

You say you're clueless as to cause, and I'm at least arguing we should seek the cause, and act based on it. We can start by ruling out anything for which we have obviously no evidence at all, such as mere "racism." That boat clearly doesn't float. And we can rule out "murder" as well, unless we can prove intent, which right now, we cannot. I'm suggesting we begin with practical assessment of all the variables in the situation, including criminality, drug abuse, police training, medical intervention, urban cultural mores, and of course, the life-choices made freely by individual men like GF.

I'm saying we need data and facts upon which to form a rational judgment, not anxieties ginned up by ideologies and the Leftist press. Meanwhile, I'm resisting irrational and precipitous judgments and counterproductive or destructive actions based on vague feelings or free-floating resentments. I'm suggesting we don't destroy our political system, burn our urban areas, uselessly alienate our young people from authority and terrify them, debilitate law enforcement, cede our cities to mobs, or concede the high moral ground to mere propagandists, vandals and opportunists. I'm suggesting we pay attention to facts instead of fears.

I'd say that's a great deal more than anything you've offered, actually.

[Skepdick]

Well, I would say I'm offering much more than you are.

Why are you offering anything whatsoever if there's no problem?

Are you in the habit of wasting resources and people's time in exchange for zero benefit?

You say you're clueless as to cause, and I'm at least arguing we should seek the cause, and act based on it.

So you are arguing FOR root-cause analysis?

That sounds like problem-solving.

Why are you problem-solving if you don't recognise a problem?
How do you propose we fund this hobby-project of yours, given that it's not really solving any social problem?

We can start by ruling out anything for which we have obviously no evidence at all, such as mere "racism.". That boat clearly doesn't float. And we can rule out "murder" as well, unless we can prove intent, which right now, we cannot. I'm suggesting we begin with practical assessment of all the variables in the situation, including criminality, drug abuse, police training, medical intervention, urban cultural mores, and of course, the life-choices made freely by individual men like GF.

So you are arguing FOR process of elimination?

That sounds like problem-solving.

Why are you problem-solving if you don't recognise a problem?
How do you propose we fund this project of yours, given that it's not really solving any social problem?

I'm saying we need data and facts upon which to form a rational judgment, not anxieties ginned up by ideologies and the Leftist press.

So you are arguing for data-collection?

That sounds like problem-solving.

Why are you problem-solving if you don't recognise a problem?
How do you propose we fund this project of yours, given that it's not really solving any social problem?

Meanwhile, I'm resisting irrational and precipitous judgments and counterproductive or destructive actions based on vague feelings or free-floating resentments. I'm suggesting we don't destroy our political system, burn our urban areas, uselessly alienate our young people from authority and terrify them, debilitate law enforcement, cede our cities to mobs, or concede the high moral ground to mere propagandists, vandals and opportunists. I'm suggesting we pay attention to facts instead of fears.

So you are arguing for constructive problem-solving?

Why are you arguing for constructive problem-solving if you don't recognise a problem?

I'd say that's a great deal more than anything you've offered, actually.

It sure sounds like you have plenty solutions to sell us.

Even though you don't recognise a problem.

[henry quirk]

Police officers around the globe actually know of better ways!

so: what would you have done in chauvin's place?

What Chauvin did (cut off respiratory/circulatory system) is only necessary in order to gain compliance/control over suspect.
Putting somebody in sleeper choke is an easy way to buy yourself the 10-15 seconds need to put the handcuffs on. And even then - we know that cutting off circulation for more than 4 minutes can result in brain damage - this is "common knowledge".

Which is why none of it makes sense. GF was already handcuffed. Chauvin stood on his neck for 8 minutes. What was his game plan exactly? More compliance? To what end?

But lets say he needed more compliance...
* Use 2nd pair of cuffs - link hands and feet.
* Joint-lock extremities.
* Use his centre of gravity against him (the dude's on his stomach)

At worst he could've treated him like an epileptic patient. Clear space around him - make sure he's not a harm to himself and stand back.

Where is he going to go if you cuff his legs?

Because the question still remains: what were you trying to achieve and how long was it supposed to take (because 8 minutes wasn't enough).

if all this is true: he ought to be convicted, yeah?

[Skepdick]

if all this is true: he ought to be convicted, yeah?

I figure that's why the 3rd degree murder charge was dropped, but the 2nd degree stuck.

But really, this isn't about Chauvin. Guilty or innocent - that procedure needs to go.

[Immanuel Can]

That sounds like problem-solving.

Congratulations! You got there. It is.

The first step in "solving" is knowing IF there is something that needs to be "solved." Absent that, we're not "solving" anything...we're thrashing about -- usually, destructively. That's exactly what we're seeing with the GF situation: a bunch of lunatics thrashing around, wanting to blame or "defund the police," which will actually hurt the people and communities they claim to advocate for. We're watching idiot looters sacking the inner city, destroying their own neighbourhoods, cheered on by unscrupulous politicians who want to capitalize on the confusion to make themselves heroes.

And what "solution" to what "problem" has appeared so far, out of all that? Absolutely none. We don't even know yet what situation we're looking at. A man died...that's as much as we really know right now. There hasn't even been time to put the evidence before a jury as to whether or not the actions of the police were incompetent, excessive, and unlawful, or the products of bad training, or a fear reaction by mere human beings, or the product of hatred and contempt for black people. We know nothing, and we're trying to change everything.

The difference between you and me right now is that I don't want to merely assume I know there is a problem, and if it is, what it is; you want to assume there's a problem, and then do nothing, since you have no further means of investigation -- no concept of cause, and no means to get one, so far. Or worse, perhaps you wish to thrash around and destroy the things that already exist, in the vain hope of somehow hitting on a problem you're not even sure exists.

I'm sticking with my plan. It will take us to a solution. Step one is we have to identify the REAL problem, if there is one. If the ONLY problem turns out to be that GF took a lethal dose of fentanyl and drove crazily down the street, then that's a problem the solution to which hinges on greater personal responsibility, not radical systemic destruction. If it turns out the police were at fault (and they probably were, somewhat), then we need to establish exactly to what degree and why they were at fault, and address that in a targeted way.

Your way offers nothing. Mine offers hope for a rational solution.

[Skepdick]

That sounds like problem-solving.

Congratulations! You got there. It is.

You wanna un-contradict yourself?

You are consciously engaging in problem-solving, while believing that there is no problem.

The first step in "solving" is knowing IF there is something that needs to be "solved."

The first step in problem-solving is recognising a problem.

Otherwise you have absolutely no reason to engage in problem-solving.

Your way offers nothing. Mine offers hope for a rational solution.

So you are offering us a rational solution to a problem you don't even recognise.

Magic!

[henry quirk]

if all this is true: he ought to be convicted, yeah?

I figure that's why the 3rd degree murder charge was dropped, but the 2nd degree stuck.

But really, this isn't about Chauvin. Guilty or innocent - that procedure needs to go.

2nd fits...I doubt chauvin intended to off floyd...but his reckless disregard for floyd's life was obvious

and: yeah, the procedure needs retirin'