Crime and punishment

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: A question for Mick and W...

Post by mickthinks »

Citizens have no rights;
Some of us do.

cops -- as agents of the state -- can do just about any damn thing they like;
Police officers have a lot of power, but it isn't total.

the State -- any version -- is a cancer.
This doesn't mean much, and it denies significant differences between states like eg. Finland and China. In whatever sense being citizens of Finland and China is like having cancer, most of us would prefer the Finnish disease, I think.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A question for Mick and W...

Post by henry quirk »

Some of us do.

We have privileges which are quite apart from life, liberty, and property (ours naturally).


Police officers have a lot of power, but it isn't total.

Practically, it is.


This doesn't mean much, and it denies significant differences between states like eg. Finland and China. In whatever sense being citizens of Finland and China is like having cancer, most of us would prefer the Finnish disease, I think.

Skin cancer is better than lung cancer: I still don't want it.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: A question for Mick and W...

Post by mickthinks »

We have privileges ...
Some of us do. And some of us also have rights. You appear to think there is a distinction that can be made between rights and privileges that helps you make your point here. I doubt it, but perhaps you can explain in more detail.

Practically, it [the power that police officers have] is [total].
I believe you are exaggerating.

I still don't want it [cancer].
Naturally, but that answers a different point. One can live a satisfying life for many years after a cancer diagnosis, and some cases have even been cured completely. Just as not all cancers are the same, so not all states are the same, and the US is one where the citizens collectively have a great deal of influence over the kind of state they live in.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A question for Mick and W...

Post by henry quirk »

perhaps you can explain in more detail

I can, and have (elsewhere, in-forum), but, reality is, I don't like you and have no obligation or desire to indulge you.

But, as I'm not a complete jackhole...

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=32456

...read and learn (or not...makes me no difference either way).


I believe you are exaggerating.

I don't care.


Naturally, but that answers a different point. One can live a satisfying life for many years after a cancer diagnosis, and some cases have even been cured completely. Just as not all cancers are the same, so not all states are the same, and the US is one where the citizens collectively have a great deal of influence over the kind of state they live in.

You wear the leash well.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: A question for Mick and W...

Post by mickthinks »

I can, and have [explained a distinction that can be made between rights and privileges] (elsewhere, in-forum)

I've read some of that but I haven't found any such explanation. Here are the three times Bastiat refers to "privilege" in that text: search.php?keywords=privilege*&t=32456&sf=msgonly and as you can see, none of them makes the distinction that you want us to make. Indeed, Bastiat seems to use the terms "right" and "privilege" interchangeably.


You wear the leash well.
I don't know what that means. You jump from one metaphor to another with seeming disregard for clarity of any kind. I do not wear the US leash nor am I ill with US cancer. I'm not in any regard American. Do you deny that the American Revolution happened, or do you just claim that it has made no difference as far as you are concerned? Are you claiming that your "cancer" is the same as George III "cancer", and that your leash is as tight and debilitating as the British Imperial leash?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: A question for Mick and W...

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:58 am Answer 1: You don't have to care, and it isn't clear that you even have the capacity to care in the humanitarian sense, but you clearly care in the intellectual sense, because you are here bothering to read and post.

Yeah, I suppose so.


Answer 2: Because Floyd died horribly and Chauvin killed him in your name.

Chauvin killed him on behalf of the State; Floyd was gonna end horribly no matter what.


Answer 3: Because the case has wider implications for citizen's rights and police (and state) power and accountability.

Citizens have no rights; cops -- as agents of the state -- can do just about any damn thing they like; the State -- any version -- is a cancer. Them there are the only implications worth considerin'.
OK. So wouldn't you agree that Chauvin unjustifiably killed Floyd? If Chauvin was the instrument of an unjust state, then he must have murdered in the name of that unjust state. No? So you should be standing up in favor of Floyd--at least I would think.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A question for Mick and W...

Post by henry quirk »

OK. So wouldn't you agree that Chauvin unjustifiably killed Floyd? If Chauvin was the instrument of an unjust state, then he must have murdered in the name of that unjust state. No? So you should be standing up in favor of Floyd--at least I would think.

Oh, Chauvin was wrong...He woulda been kinder to Floyd if he'd just pulled his nightstick and beat the piss outta him.

But, Floyd? Yeah, I can say buddy, you got screwed but I'd be foolish to ignore his own complicity in the circumstance.

His own complicity? Oh, he was as complicit in his own death as the woman who, after accompanying a stranger to his hotel room at 4am for conversation and, instead of exchangin' bon mots, is sodomized, is complicit in her rape. She shouldn't have been raped -- that guy needs a bullet to the brain -- but she wouldn't have been raped if she'd exercised a lil common sense to begin with.

But, that's blaming the victim, Henry! Yes, it is. She, the sodomized, and he, the knelt-upon, both coulda avoided those awful events with just a smidge of common sense and a thimble-full of self-discipline.

So, yeah, I can sympathize with Floyd (after all, gettin' offed by a moron with a badge...well, that's just plain humiliatin'), but stand up for him? Nope.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: A question for Mick and W...

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:30 pm OK. So wouldn't you agree that Chauvin unjustifiably killed Floyd? If Chauvin was the instrument of an unjust state, then he must have murdered in the name of that unjust state. No? So you should be standing up in favor of Floyd--at least I would think.

Oh, Chauvin was wrong...He woulda been kinder to Floyd if he'd just pulled his nightstick and beat the piss outta him.

But, Floyd? Yeah, I can say buddy, you got screwed but I'd be foolish to ignore his own complicity in the circumstance.

His own complicity? Oh, he was as complicit in his own death as the woman who, after accompanying a stranger to his hotel room at 4am for conversation and, instead of exchangin' bon mots, is sodomized, is complicit in her rape. She shouldn't have been raped -- that guy needs a bullet to the brain -- but she wouldn't have been raped if she'd exercised a lil common sense to begin with.

But, that's blaming the victim, Henry! Yes, it is. She, the sodomized, and he, the knelt-upon, both coulda avoided those awful events with just a smidge of common sense and a thimble-full of self-discipline.

So, yeah, I can sympathize with Floyd (after all, gettin' offed by a moron with a badge...well, that's just plain humiliatin'), but stand up for him? Nope.
OK. That seems like a fair answer.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Crime and punishment

Post by Gary Childress »

Although, by the same token as the rapist deserving a "bullet to the brain," doesn't Chauvin deserve the justice of being sentenced for murder or else, at the very least, manslaughter?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Crime and punishment

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:25 pm Although, by the same token as the rapist deserving a "bullet to the brain," doesn't Chauvin deserve the justice of being sentenced for murder?
He ought to fry if he murdered Floyd, yeah.

That's the question: did he *murder the man?

Did he even **kill Floyd, or was his knee just a contributin' factor to a ***death already in progress?

The trial is supposed to answer these questions.




*he intended to off Floyd

**he didn't intend to off Floyd

***heart attack, organ failure, etc.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Crime and punishment

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:45 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:25 pm Although, by the same token as the rapist deserving a "bullet to the brain," doesn't Chauvin deserve the justice of being sentenced for murder?
He ought to fry if he murdered Floyd, yeah.

That's the question: did he *murder the man?

Did he even **kill Floyd, or was his knee just a contributin' factor to a ***death already in progress?

The trial is supposed to answer these questions.




*he intended to off Floyd

**he didn't intend to off Floyd

***heart attack, organ failure, etc.
If his knee was a contributing factor, then he could be sentenced for manslaughter.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Crime and punishment

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:48 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:45 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:25 pm Although, by the same token as the rapist deserving a "bullet to the brain," doesn't Chauvin deserve the justice of being sentenced for murder?
He ought to fry if he murdered Floyd, yeah.

That's the question: did he *murder the man?

Did he even **kill Floyd, or was his knee just a contributin' factor to a ***death already in progress?

The trial is supposed to answer these questions.




*he intended to off Floyd

**he didn't intend to off Floyd

***heart attack, organ failure, etc.
If his knee was a contributing factor, then he could be sentenced for manslaughter.
At the very least he oughta get an ass-whippin'.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Crime and punishment

Post by Walker »

“If George Floyd’s murderer is not sentenced just know that all hell is going to break loose. Don’t be surprised when buildings are on fire.”
- Maya Echols, speaking for BLM.

Comment: Although Chauvin is looking guilty as hell, the cities are still in danger if he doesn’t get the maximum sentence. Maya forget to mention that.

Threats might tip the blind scales of justice one way, Chauvinism might tip sentencing the other way but that's not likely.

(see how I made a funny there? :lol: )

And who is this Maya anyway? Some young twerp of a camera queen lying around the living or bedroom or somewhere.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Crime and punishment

Post by Walker »

An interesting and entertaining view. More at the link.

MINNEAPOLIS VS. THE EVIDENCE
COLUMN
April 7, 2021 by Ann Coulter
https://anncoulter.com/2021/04/07/minne ... evidencex/

Apparently, no one is watching the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer on trial for the murder of George Floyd. Otherwise, the media couldn’t get away with their spectacular lying to the public about how the prosecution is killing it.

It’s quite the opposite. In fact, in less than a week, the prosecution’s theory of the crime has subtly shifted from MURDER! to “failed to provide what we would say, in retrospect, would be a full and complete duty of care during the one- to three-minute interval between Floyd’s resisting the police to his dying, as a hostile crowd screamed obscenities at the police officers.”

The defense hasn’t even begun to make its case, but the prosecution’s witnesses keep helping Chauvin. (The only exception to the wild media lying is Headline News, where the lawyer commentators go the extra mile by watching the trial.)

Week One was chock-a-block with weeping bystanders wailing about how they felt watching Chauvin restrain Floyd. This would be tremendous evidence if the charge against Officer Chauvin were “first-degree upsetting bystanders.” But that’s not the charge. That’s not even a crime.

(Continues at the link. Coulter weighs about 90 pounds, and likes to swipe at chubby folks.)
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Crime and punishment

Post by Age »

Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pm I think you have this Wrong.
Not according to what you wrote.
You missed my point because you replied before you read all of the rest of what I wrote.
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmIs it written in the charges that "chauvin" murdered "floyd" BECAUSE "floyd" would not comply and get into the police car?
I don’t know.
I suggest it is best 'you know' BEFORE you write like you had here.
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmSaying that a human being murdered another human being BECAUSE the latter did not get into a car is just an EXCUSE and/or an attempt to "justify" one's murderous behavior.
He was resisting police instructions.
And do you think or believe that this 'justifies' murdering another human being?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmThe actual reason "chauvin" MURDERED "floyd" is BECAUSE "chauvin" did NOT lift his leg off from the neck of "floyd".
Why was his leg there?
For whatever EXCUSE the one with the leg on the neck of "another" makes up.
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmNow, that is HOW "chauvin" MURDERED "floyd". WHY "chauvin" WANTED to keep his "knee" on "chauvins" airways until "floyd" could not breath anymore only "chauvin" KNOWS.
I didn’t see his knee on the airway. Did you?


No. I observed the knee on the neck of which the airway was in.

Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmFloyd's trachea was not crushed.


Does a trachea have to be crushed for one to not be able to breathe?

Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pm Can you deduce the significance of that without asking me to?


Yes.

Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmI saw the knee on the side of his neck, although I heard someone was sitting on his back, and that would restrict breathing.
Okay. Are you now suggesting that "floyd" was murdered because someone was sitting on his back?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmWalker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pmChauvin tried to accommodate Floyd’s resistance and agitation, but eventually resorted to force.
How, exactly, does one "accomodate" another's "resistance and agitation"?
In this case, call the paddy wagon.
Is that what "chauvin" did?

Or, did "chauvin" sit on "floyd's" back, with an appearance of kneeling on "floyd's" neck, while waiting for who knows what?

Also, how does calling a different type of motor vehicle actually "accommodate one's resistance and agitation" at the moment of resistance and agitation?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmWalker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pmhttps://www.startribune.com/what-happen ... 600031856/
The is a real test for the blindness of Justice.

I would have thought 'blindness, or not, of justice" could only be worked out accurately, AFTER the whole 'justice' process had finished. But you appear to ALREADY KNOW.
Yes to the first sentence. No to the second.
Okay.
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmWalker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pmThe mob wants a guilty verdict.
Who is the "mob"?
The large crowd demonstrating and the spokespeople within the mob voicing threats.
Is there NO 'mob' at all, which wants a non guilty verdict?

If no, then why not?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmAnd, HOW do you KNOW the "mob" wants a guilty verdict?
From what has been said. Look it up. The mob isn't assembling on behalf of Chauvin.

Is there anything wrong with some human beings wanting a guilty verdict, or, in other words, what they see as 'justice'?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmOh, and by the way, what do you want? A guilty or an innocent verdict?
Irrelevant. I’m not on the jury or in the mob.
So, are you suggesting here that if you did want a non guilty verdict, then 'you' would be 'in a mob', also?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmWalker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pmThe jury, the judge, and the attorneys know what mobs do. They know mob “politics.”
How do they KNOW what "mobs" do? By watching television footage, like that of the capitol invasion?
From their threats, and other mob riots in which the police were targeted.
Can there be 'mobs' in which offenders/criminals are targeted?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmWalker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pmA jury verdict of not guilty will likely spark a summer of rioting, destruction and death, based on the mob’s past performance.
WHY is the "mob" on the OTHER SIDE, for 'you', adult human beings?
You’re an adult human being, answer your own question.
If I was 'you' I would NOT 'assume' ANY thing.

The reason 'you', adult human beings make "the mob" on the OTHER SIDE of what 'you, individually, want is because of your prejudiced views and BELIEFS.

If 'you' are an adult human being, what is YOUR answer to WHY do 'you' SEE "the mob" as the ones on the OTHER SIDE of YOUR views and beliefs?

Or, are you NOT YET able to answer this question, properly and correctly?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmAnd, WHICH "mob's past performance" are you referring to exactly?
The mobs that rioted, burned, killed and looted last summer, and throughout history.
Okay.

What about the 'mobs' that have peacefully gone about making change, for the better, throughout history?

Or, did you not want to LOOK AT and acknowledge those ones?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmWalker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pm- When the police arrived they asked Floyd if he had taken drugs because he was foaming at the mouth. Floyd said yes. He said he was “hooping.”
HOW do you KNOW that this is EXACTLY what happened?
It was reported and witnessed first hand, but not by me.
So, what you meant was actually, ' It was reported that "when the police arrived ... ', correct?

See, adding those first four words can differentiate between thee ACTUAL Truth from what MIGHT BE true, false, or partly false.

Also, are ALL first hand accounts 100% accurate, true, and correct?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmWere you there, or did someone of 'your' "mob" inform you of this?
No, and no.
Okay.

I wonder if and what SIDE that 'witness' was on?
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmWalker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pm- Floyd would not get into the cruiser.
And should human beings who do not get into police cars be murdered?
No.
Okay, but you did imply that "chauvin" is on trial for murdering "floyd" BECAUSE "floyd" did not get into the police car.
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pm Walker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pm- Floyd was too big a guy to just pick up and put into the back seat of a sedan.
Are you suggesting here that it is better, or easier, to just murder "bigger guys", then to work out how to put them into police cars?
You have rendered the verdict of "murder." The jury has not.


What made you make the presumption that I "have rendered the verdict of "murder"?

Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pm
A better way of transport would be the paddy wagon.


After one is DEAD I think there is a better way of transport than a paddy wagon.

Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pm If no, then what are you suggesting? You are obviously NOT providing an acceptable reason for murdering a human being.
The answer was not no.


So, if it was not 'no', then this could mean that it might be a 'yes, which, if it is a 'yes', then if you think or believe that murder is a better or easier way, then so be it. You are FREE to think or BELIEVE whatever you like.

Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmWalker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pm- Chauvin and his superiors say procedures and training were observed in the arrest.
"chauvin" is charged with MURDERING a human being. So, are you here suggesting that murdering human beings who do not automatically and voluntary enter a police car, after some particular time frame, is part of the police procedure and training?
No.

Are ALL of "chauvin's" superiors saying procedures and training were observed in the arrest.

Also, if procedures and training was REALLY being observed in the arrest, then murdering human beings is part of the procedures and training given to police officers here, which I would hope was NOT the case AT ALL

Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:17 pmWalker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pmWhat else could Chauvin have done to take Floyd back to the police station?
Allowed him to live. Talked to him like a human being, and made it clear that there was nothing to fear.
The cops did that prior to the knee and no, I wasn’t there to witness that first hand.

LOL Do you REALLY believe that what I just suggested was REALLY what took place?

Also, if you were NOT there to witness what ACTUALLY took place, then WHY did you say, "The cops did that prior to the knee"?

Furthermore, they OBVIOUSLY did NOT do 'that', because part of 'that' was ALLOWING HIM TO LIVE.



And, if one is claustrophobic, then a somewhat "larger" ENCLOSED SPACE is NOT really going to suffice.



And that is ALL?

Have people of, the misnomer, "color" NEVER feared the police and authoritarian peoples of the world?

Could have "floyd" been scared and afraid of the police, as well as being claustrophobic?



This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of responses human beings provided in the days of when this was written. That is; IGNORE the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION, and DETRACT in SOMEWAY.



OBVIOUSLY if one is found to have MURDERED someone, then there is NO defense that could cause an innocent verdict.

My point WAS we have to WAIT to SEE If "chauvin" is found to have MURDERED, (which is an UNLAWFUL KILLING), or NOT, then, and ONLY THEN, there is NOTHING that could cause an innocent verdict.

We have to WAIT for what is FOUND during the PROCESS. But if you think or believe that BYSTANDERS, who are NOT OBSERVING the INFORMATION PROVIDED can just say, accurately, what could cause an innocent verdict, then you are SADLY MISTAKEN.




LOL You did NOT even format, properly and correctly, for this forum.

Also, "putting order" to questions is not even a logical proposition. Either you just answer questions, or you do, like you have SHOWN, NOT answer questions.



You can 'try' and DETRACT as much as you like. But it is NOT working.



I ask CLARIFYING questions to posters to SHOW readers just how much, or how little, that poster knows in regards to what they SAY and/or CLAIM.

The readers can SEE what is ACTUALLY happening and occurring here.

The EVIDENCE and PROOF has ALREADY taken place. So, how 'you' proceed from here is YOUR choice.

'you', "walker", OBVIOUSLY already have concluded what the verdict SHOULD BE, and I am, and have been, just HIGHLIGHTING this FACT.

By the way, because you could not even be bother to format properly and correctly, I could NOT be bothered fixing what was caused because of your laziness or lack of ability.
Post Reply