Derek Chauvin is innocent

[Tarn]

Reply
Notify
Mark unread
Send this topic
Print
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Down
Topic: Derek Chauvin is innocent  (Read 383 times)

Thanks for that thoughtful post - I suspect we may not be so far apart socio-politically as we might have thought. And I agree that some entitled attitudes (though not confined to specific classes) are a pain. 

[DeppityDawg]

OK, I may not be as old and as experienced as some here, but (a) I have some idea of how the English language works, and (b) I am not fobbed off that easily. The phrase "you can mock" implies not only the capability of mocking, but the intent and likelihood of mocking. It is, however, a matter of opinion to which you are entitled, and not really a big deal to me.

It was used in the context that perhaps some might mock a "law and order" mentality as old fashioned.

Of course all findings are subject to interpretation (which is a good reason to express ourselves as clearly, with as little ambiguity, as possible,) but I feel that I should make the point that I am essentially apolitical where party politics are concerned (TBH, I don't know enough about politics to take a firm stance). So forget about a 'liberal narrative' (whatever that is) where I am concerned - I am neither socialist nor conservative where matters of life and death are concerned.

I don't think it is that simple. We are all subject to the influences of who and what is reporting a story, and most sources (if not all) have a bias. Life and death can indeed be politicised, and regularly is.

Not quite sure what you are implying about 'middle-class angst', but I cannot disagree with any of that, and I have to admit to being somewhat middle-class. 

I don't like the middle class very much, I'm afraid. Its the conceitedness that gets me (not saying you are, btw)

I cannot presume to speak for Cromwell, as I do not know him as well as perhaps you do - but the possibility exists that the Police, aided and abetted by the judiciary in certain jurisdictions, close ranks (much as the military is inclined to do) when the reputation of the service is endangered, thus enabling miscarriages of justice.

I was highlighting Ken Clarke (Cromwells) use of language. Yes, we all do it, but his use of language does (in my opinion) indicate the position from which he is viewing this. Don't worry about it. He and I argue about everything. He's a liberal.

As for closing ranks, perhaps. There are many other reasons for that, not all of them you'd understand I suspect

In 2018 - 1 person was killed by British police,  1 person was killed by New Zealand police, 11 people were killed by German police, 6 people were killed by Swedish police, 3 people were killed by Belgian police, 26 people were killed by French police, and 1,603 people were killed by US police. Of course these are not per capita, but as a matter of comparison there are 5 Americans to every Briton, so the comparable figure for the USA would be 5 - instead of 1,603. So the impression of a disproportionate number of Americans being killed by their law enforcement agencies has some basis.

Indeed. As you've already stated that US society is not particularly healthy, so unless you are suggesting the comparison because the other countries you mentioned are equally unhealthy, its not really a fair comparison is it? The US has vastly more and different problems to the UK, or any of the other countries mentioned. How about Brazil? How many people do police in Brazil kill each year?

In the end its about the narrative. 1500 people killed annually by police in a country of 320 million is not good. But its not the police out of control scenario some sides of the political spectrum would have you believe. Defund the police anyone?

All impressions, while based upon varying evidence, are essentially subjective, but the police forces of the societies I mentioned do a comparably difficult and dangerous job, whilst managing not to kill an alarming number of those they are tasked to serve and defend. Nothing is being downplayed (at least not by me). The statistics speak for themselves.

The statistics do indeed speak for themselves when they are presented dispassionately. Even in the US, your chances of being unlawfully killed by the Police are vanishingly small. When statistics are presented selectively, they speak about different agendas at work.

[Tarn]

I believe the quote you posted says "you can" not that you did.

OK, I may not be as old and as experienced as some here, but (a) I have some idea of how the English language works, and (b) I am not fobbed off that easily. The phrase "you can mock" implies not only the capability of mocking, but the intent and likelihood of mocking. It is, however, a matter of opinion to which you are entitled, and not really a big deal to me.

Its about the meanings we attribute to what others write, isn't it? You've just demonstrated it yourself. The liberal narrative (and again, this does not necessarily refer to you or anyone else on this forum), is that an "out of control" and "untrained" police department routinely (and maliciously) kills people every day in the US

Of course all findings are subject to interpretation (which is a good reason to express ourselves as clearly, with as little ambiguity, as possible,) but I feel that I should make the point that I am essentially apolitical where party politics are concerned (TBH, I don't know enough about politics to take a firm stance). So forget about a 'liberal narrative' (whatever that is) where I am concerned - I am neither socialist nor conservative where matters of life and death are concerned.

I don't believe anyone is arguing over people being able to express their opinions on here (even if they are a little middle class angst-y). However, as a visitor to the US many times myself, I would not necessarily disagree, although we might not agree on the reasons why US society is like it is.

Not quite sure what you are implying about 'middle-class angst', but I cannot disagree with any of that, and I have to admit to being somewhat middle-class. 

And I'm sure your impressions are formed from the "available evidence". It is becoming common now to have videos available, from both the public and the Police, where evidence that might previously not have been seen is now accessible. But there are two points here. The first is that this evidence can just as easily corroborate police statements as provide proof of police brutality. The second is that unless they are complete and viewed in context, they don't necessarily "prove" anything on their own.

Again, cannot disagree with much of that. Of course all comments and statements must be viewed in context.

Interestingly, Cromwell has chosen to highlight above the amount of police officers who are not convicted or convicted of lesser offences. You can view this two ways too. Either you can view it that the evidence is not strong enough to convict, or you can view it that they "get away with it". From his use of the term "bought to book", I think we can hazard a fair guess as to which side of the story he prefers.

I cannot presume to speak for Cromwell, as I do not know him as well as perhaps you do - but the possibility exists that the Police, aided and abetted by the judiciary in certain jurisdictions, close ranks (much as the military is inclined to do) when the reputation of the service is endangered, thus enabling miscarriages of justice.

You do? Well, its hard to find consistent figures, but I think if you check you'll find that what are classed as 'homicides' by the Police in the US runs at about 1000 per year (I wouldn't swear an oath to that thought). Meanwhile, "felony" killings OF Police officers runs at around 150 per year. Two were killed yesterday I believe.

There are two points you could take from this. If they are correct (and I'm the first to admit finding the figures isn't easy), they suggest that in a country of 320 million people, your chances of being killed (felony) by the police are not large.

The second is that (if these figures are correct) the picture being painted by the liberal media (backed by impressions like yours) of a cowed population being murdered by the police are not fully justified.

In 2018 - 1 person was killed by British police,  1 person was killed by New Zealand police, 11 people were killed by German police, 6 people were killed by Swedish police, 3 people were killed by Belgian police, 26 people were killed by French police, and 1,603 people were killed by US police. Of course these are not per capita, but as a matter of comparison there are 5 Americans to every Briton, so the comparable figure for the USA would be 5 - instead of 1,603. So the impression of a disproportionate number of Americans being killed by their law enforcement agencies has some basis.

The final point I'd make is that your "impression" is just that. We can all have impressions, but it doesn't make them either right or untainted by our own prejudices. If you'd ever had to patrol one of the less safe areas of a large US city, at night, with perhaps one partner, you might find your impression might change markedly.

That US society is "not particularly healthy" is not really in dispute. Its reasons and causes are not really of much relevance, any dispute in my view is about how law and order is kept. Its about not just the safety of suspects (who very often are not co-operative) and how they are treated, but about the support we offer to those who do a difficult and dangerous job. And that, despite it being downplayed here, is a fact.

All impressions, while based upon varying evidence, are essentially subjective, but the police forces of the societies I mentioned do a comparably difficult and dangerous job, whilst managing not to kill an alarming number of those they are tasked to serve and defend. Nothing is being downplayed (at least not by me). The statistics speak for themselves.

[DeppityDawg]

Can we?,funny how it's OK for you to make these assumptions but get the hump when someone else does it even if they weren't but not realising  made an everyday comment to another poster and what I thought was a humorous aside to your self proclaimed ineptitude at the bookies.....silly of me I know.

I think in this case, yes, why not? "Bought to book" is fairly commonly used term meaning to face justice. You're highlighting that "only a third of them are ever convicted", which means they must have faced a trial - presumably then you mean that "justice" wasn't done? Unless you have another interpretation? Me, as a betting man I'd only give evens that you meant something else

Also, your comment on cops "benefits", like a generous pension? Sure, cops are the only people who get pensions? My forces pension comes into payment this month. Maybe I should give it back because some of us smacked a few people with a stick for Maggie, and no one was there with a camera to say "gotcha" eh?

And yes, I make assumptions too, we all do. I've told you repeatedly that your views are often neo-liberal and you've often intimated that my approach is to "kick the feck" out of everyone. Neither is probably fully true, but both contain an element of the truth perhaps

As it happens I do think kneeling on someones neck is a pretty poor behaviour,law enforcement have tremendous powers and it is right they be accountable when excercising them.

Streetwalker highlighted the "control" element to you in a previous post. Hes correct in that the emphasis of most training is on control, and the reasons for that are obvious enough. They also place emphasis on safety, for ALL, not just the suspect.

There are many ways to contain or incapacitate someone - I don't know what training Minneapolis police are given, and I don't really care a feck. Personally, the tactic I most saw used or used myself was reverse lock (usually with a No4 stick) and the body weight in the back. The truth is Cromwell, any method can be dangerous, and no method is foolproof.

But it largely depends on circumstances, on the suspect/detainee themselves, and on the skill of/situation the officers find themselves in. Drugs are a bigger problem in those kind of places (inner city deprived), and present situations that are both dangerous and have the potential to spiral out of control rapidly. I would guess that using a knee on the neck is method preferred because its one of the few reliable ways to contain someone who is out of their head and who, just because they don't present a problem right now, won't present one in a few moments time. Drugs not only give someone altered perception, they can give massively increased strength and lack of regard for injury to themselves, let alone other people or coppers. You'd know all this I guess, and that Chauvin, and probably every other cop there, had seen this kind of thing over and over again over many years?

I couldn't believe that it would be accepted procedure (and still don't) so did a little digging,Maxine Peake and Long Bailey attributed it to US police being trained by Israeli security forces (her comments on this leading her to be sacked by Starmer on anti semitic grounds) as it happens further digging revealed this to be nonsense which is how I found it it was accepted procedure and training in Minneapolis and the neighbouring (what I thought funny) city of Minnetonka.....I was going to ask if that's where they make the toy trucks but humour it seems is off the menu.

Of course. Which only goes to underline the political capital there is to be gained by working liberals into a frenzy over police wrongdoing. That would never happen here of course, would it?

In the end, this is a show trial. A show trial we have to have because the consequences of not having it (that have been encouraged by woke liberals) is worse than putting this guy away for the rest of his life

[cromwell]

Interestingly, Cromwell has chosen to highlight above the amount of police officers who are not convicted or convicted of lesser offences. You can view this two ways too. Either you can view it that the evidence is not strong enough to convict, or you can view it that they "get away with it". From his use of the term "bought to book", I think we can hazard a fair guess as to which side of the story he prefers

Can we?,funny how it's OK for you to make these assumptions but get the hump when someone else does it even if they weren't but not realising  made an everyday comment to another poster and what I thought was a humorous aside to your self proclaimed ineptitude at the bookies.....silly of me I know.

As it happens I do think kneeling on someones neck is a pretty poor behaviour,law enforcement have tremendous powers and it is right they be accountable when excercising them.

I couldn't believe that it would be accepted procedure (and still don't) so did a little digging,Maxine Peake and Long Bailey attributed it to US police being trained by Israeli security forces (her comments on this leading her to be sacked by Starmer on anti semitic grounds) as it happens further digging revealed this to be nonsense which is how I found it it was accepted procedure and training in Minneapolis and the neighbouring (what I thought funny) city of Minnetonka.....I was going to ask if that's where they make the toy trucks but humour it seems is off the menu.

I tried to forget the whole BLM stuff surrounding this and look at it dispassionately and still think his behaviour warrants being taken to court.

Further digging and because I think the USA is a madhouse led me to  American sources which said there was general dissatisfaction with policing there and they compared it unfavourably with Europe and the other nations mentioned which led to another post you disapproved of.

Anyway must be off to do some handwringing and a little angst (even though I'm not middle class) but rest assured I shall endeavour to make no further reference to your piss poor betting ability in a humorous way or otherwise and probably even on your thoughts and opinions.

[Thomas]

The kid third from the left is a Ninja Warrior .

I dont know (who does?) what Chauvins thoughts were during the incident , I dont know if he is guilty or not of crushing the guys neck  , I dont know if Floyd was completely out of it although he seemed to be

Now you know I like to back outsiders and Chauvin is certainly that . The media have already convicted him , his police federation have already convicted him and his City council have already convicted him and paid out £20M to Floyds family just a week before the trial .
You would have thought they would have waited for the verdict wouldn't you ?  What if by some twist of fate the court finds their  police officers were not to blame , will they ask for their money back ?

No Cromwell they wont have to because Chauvin has already been convicted , this is not a trial but a sentencing hearing and that to me is wrong .

Good post mate , fully agree.

Not going to go over old ground. We have discussed the flaws of yank society and what passes for criminal justice too many times over the years.

What you have said here highlighted is spot on mate, this isnt a trial ,this is red meat being thrown to baying dogs.

[Nick]

So you do believe it's a conspiracy?

No not really, I do however think it is going to be very difficult for a jury to be able to make a decision with all BLM stuff that's gone before.

[DeppityDawg]

I can only assume the Americanism 'college boy' referred to me, so allow me to set the record straight. I did not mock anyone, and I need you to quote the post wherein you claim I did that, if you persist with the accusation.

I believe the quote you posted says "you can" not that you did. Its about the meanings we attribute to what others write, isn't it? You've just demonstrated it yourself. The liberal narrative (and again, this does not necessarily refer to you or anyone else on this forum), is that an "out of control" and "untrained" police department routinely (and maliciously) kills people every day in the US

I merely related my experiences as visitor to the USA, and the conclusions I drew therefrom. I do not consider the USA a particularly healthy society, and gave that opinion together with my impressions from the incident concerned - which I believe is allowed by the rules of this board

Those impressions were formed by the material evidence available - I have judged Chauvin's actions reprehensible upon that evidence, but I have not presumed to know his motives or prejudices.

I don't think Cromwell, or anyone else, was asking you to apologise (note the English spelling  ) and while I respect your views; we are all entitled to express differing opinions on this board.

I don't believe anyone is arguing over people being able to express their opinions on here (even if they are a little middle class angst-y). However, as a visitor to the US many times myself, I would not necessarily disagree, although we might not agree on the reasons why US society is like it is

And I'm sure your impressions are formed from the "available evidence". It is becoming common now to have videos available, from both the public and the Police, where evidence that might previously not have been seen is now accessible. But there are two points here. The first is that this evidence can just as easily corroborate police statements as provide proof of police brutality. The second is that unless they are complete and viewed in context, they don't necessarily "prove" anything on their own

Interestingly, Cromwell has chosen to highlight above the amount of police officers who are not convicted or convicted of lesser offences. You can view this two ways too. Either you can view it that the evidence is not strong enough to convict, or you can view it that they "get away with it". From his use of the term "bought to book", I think we can hazard a fair guess as to which side of the story he prefers

I often learn more from people who disagree with me, than from those who nod their heads in agreement.

You do? Well, its hard to find consistent figures, but I think if you check you'll find that what are classed as 'homicides' by the Police in the US runs at about 1000 per year (I wouldn't swear an oath to that thought). Meanwhile, "felony" killings OF Police officers runs at around 150 per year. Two were killed yesterday I believe.

There are two points you could take from this. If they are correct (and I'm the first to admit finding the figures isn't easy), they suggest that in a country of 320 million people, your chances of being killed (felony) by the police are not large.

The second is that (if these figures are correct) the picture being painted by the liberal media (backed by impressions like yours) of a cowed population being murdered by the police are not fully justified

The final point I'd make is that your "impression" is just that. We can all have impressions, but it doesn't make them either right or untainted by our own prejudices. If you'd ever had to patrol one of the less safe areas of a large US city, at night, with perhaps one partner, you might find your impression might change markedly.

That US society is "not particularly healthy" is not really in dispute. Its reasons and causes are not really of much relevance, any dispute in my view is about how law and order is kept. Its about not just the safety of suspects (who very often are not co-operative) and how they are treated, but about the support we offer to those who do a difficult and dangerous job. And that, despite it being downplayed here, is a fact.

[cromwell]

Funnily enough despite all the wailing on here statistically few US police officers are ever brought to book,and of those that are only one third are ever convicted.....usually of lesser offences.

US policing and regulation is more fragmented and ruling differs dictated at local levels than national.
The police are more militarised and brutal compared to Europe and places like Australia NZ and Canada.

The burden of proof of a US officer feeling endangered and using deadly force is much lower than the countries previously mentioned..

[cromwell]

Absolutely, this is O.J. Simpson all over again but in reverse. It would be carnage if he was found not guilty, cries of white elitism would be loud and clear.

So you do believe it's a conspiracy?

[Nick]

Apparently not,some believe he's been found guilty already by a lot of liberals and to avoid any probs he will be found to be so.

Absolutely, this is O.J. Simpson all over again but in reverse. It would be carnage if he was found not guilty, cries of white elitism would be loud and clear.

[cromwell]

They're not necessarily lying, they could be mistaken. Someone is cause the cops seem to believe it was part of their training.

As I said, the trial will out.

Apparently not,some believe he's been found guilty already by a lot of liberals and to avoid any probs he will be found to be so.

[Nick]

So the sergeant,the homicide officer are all in a conspiracy of sorts because they want to distance themselves but aren't bothered that lying about procedure under oath would be a problem........OK.

And when we do see and it is procedure is it OK to remind you of that,I mean I don't mind if proved wrong.

They're not necessarily lying, they could be mistaken. Someone is cause the cops seem to believe it was part of their training.

As I said, the trial will out.

[cromwell]

Time and the trial will expose what the procedures really are. Of course the sergeant would say that, he is going to try and distance himself from it, doesn't mean he is correct though. We will see.

So the sergeant,the homicide officer are all in a conspiracy of sorts because they want to distance themselves but aren't bothered that lying about procedure under oath would be a problem........OK.

And when we do see and it is procedure is it OK to remind you of that,I mean I don't mind if proved wrong.

[Nick]

Shouting doesn't validate.

So can you explain why the supervising sergeant,the chief homicide officer of Minnesota PD stated that it is not procedure to keep a knee on a neck once a suspect is in cuffs so Chauvin would still have had his hands free and knee not on neck had he followed procedure?

Time and the trial will expose what the procedures really are. Of course the sergeant would say that, he is going to try and distance himself from it, doesn't mean he is correct though. We will see.