The murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, MN last Monday, May 25

[marshwiggle]

Once again, the way to win me (and others) over is to actually condemn police violence when it arises, not to bend over backwards to try to excuse it every way you can. If you're willing to go to such lengths here, in this open-and-shut case, what grounds do I have to believe you when you say you're against police violence in the first place?

None.

I'm against police violence in the same way I'm against cancer. And I'm for measures to reduce it, just like I'm for research to cure cancer. Neither of those prevent me from pointing out that many people who suffer from both of these things, (neither of which is a certainty), have engaged in activities, often in a pattern over many years, which increase the odds of experiencing them.

Trying to cure cancer is not so that people can make unhealthy lifestyle choices without consequences; it's an attempt to have treatment that supplements the value of people making good choices.

[Parasaurolophus]

Once again, the way to win me (and others) over is to actually condemn police violence when it arises, not to bend over backwards to try to excuse it every way you can. If you're willing to go to such lengths here, in this open-and-shut case, what grounds do I have to believe you when you say you're against police violence in the first place?

None.

I'm against police violence in the same way I'm against cancer. And I'm for measures to reduce it, just like I'm for research to cure cancer. Neither of those prevent me from pointing out that many people who suffer from both of these things, (neither of which is a certainty), have engaged in activities, often in a pattern over many years, which increase the odds of experiencing them.

Trying to cure cancer is not so that people can make unhealthy lifestyle choices without consequences; it's an attempt to have treatment that supplements the value of people making good choices.

Then this goes right back to ergative's point: being subject to unlawful violence is not and should not be a consequence of criminal activity (leaving aside the question of whether Floyd actually did anything illegal, which has not been determined). Some uses of force are authorized to police. Others are not. The ones which are may be causally connnected to arrests; the ones which aren't, shouldn't be (there's no excuse for them).

Every interaction you have with police increases your chances of arrest and lawful violence against you; fine. But they shouldn't also increase your chances of being murdered by the police, because police are not authorized to murder you.


If you want to insist that you're against police violence and for measures to reduce it, then I don't understand why you're so invested in exculpating this guy by drawing attention away from his horrifically violent crime and instead condemning his victim. Remember: Chauvin engaged in activities, over a period of 19 years, which substantially increased his odds of getting caught and going to prison. He was a career criminal hiding behind his uniform.

[marshwiggle]

Once again, the way to win me (and others) over is to actually condemn police violence when it arises, not to bend over backwards to try to excuse it every way you can. If you're willing to go to such lengths here, in this open-and-shut case, what grounds do I have to believe you when you say you're against police violence in the first place?

None.

I'm against police violence in the same way I'm against cancer. And I'm for measures to reduce it, just like I'm for research to cure cancer. Neither of those prevent me from pointing out that many people who suffer from both of these things, (neither of which is a certainty), have engaged in activities, often in a pattern over many years, which increase the odds of experiencing them.

Trying to cure cancer is not so that people can make unhealthy lifestyle choices without consequences; it's an attempt to have treatment that supplements the value of people making good choices.

Then this goes right back to ergative's point: being subject to unlawful violence is not and should not be a consequence of criminal activity (leaving aside the question of whether Floyd actually did anything illegal, which has not been determined). Some uses of force are authorized to police. Others are not. The ones which are may be causally connnected to arrests; the ones which aren't, shouldn't be (there's no excuse for them).

Every interaction you have with police increases your chances of arrest and lawful violence against you; fine. But they shouldn't also increase your chances of being murdered by the police, because police are not authorized to murder you.


If you want to insist that you're against police violence and for measures to reduce it, then I don't understand why you're so invested in exculpating this guy by drawing attention away from his horrifically violent crime and instead condemning his victim. Remember: Chauvin engaged in activities, over a period of 19 years, which substantially increased his odds of getting caught and going to prison. He was a career criminal hiding behind his uniform.

Chauvin was convicted by a jury in a court of law. I didn't contribute to his legal defense fund (if there was one), I didn't protest on his behalf, or anything of the sort. The one thing I was curious about was the medical evidence about the effects of Floyd's drug use and pre-existing health conditions. The medical examiner and others testified about this, and the jury made their decision. The legal process exists for a reason, and it has done its job. I'm not sure how this makes me "invested in exculpating" Chauvin. (I've "invested" more every time I buy a cup of coffee.)

What concerns me for society is that if the pressure to immediately treat all kinds of actions by police as criminal, then two things are likely to happen:

• Cops will quit or retire, and fewer people will become cops in the first place, leading to a shortage.
• Cops will avoid all kinds of interactions with suspects, which will ultimately mean them avoiding areas with high crime, which means avoiding the most disadvantaged neighborhoods.

If police feel the deck is stacked against them, these things will happen. As long as the charges and convictions of police are in situations that most police see as definitely wrong, this won't be a problem.

"Defund the police" is very much a "be careful what you wish for" scenario.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Why are you sad for Chauvin? His actions have had consequences. He was what I call a 'thug'--a serial abuser of his power who delighted in harming the people over whom he had power, who brazenly defrauded his government, and who for decades was allowed to flout the laws he was employed to uphold despite a long litany of complaints which, if directed at anyone who wasn't a police officer, would have resulted in multiple assault charges and convictions.

If he didn't want to go to prison, he shouldn't have murdered someone.

Also, the sentencing for law enforcement officials should be much harsher than for ordinary citizens.

Call him what you want.  I'd consider Floyd the thug but you can put whatever label you want on someone.  If I were walking alone in downtown Minneapolis after dark and I had a choice between encountering Floyd or Chauvin I'd take Chauvin every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Good cops get complaints.  I don't know if you honestly don't realize this or not but criminals game the complaint system.  People who legally and justifiably got their ass handed to them by a cop go and file a complaint on that cop.  The fact that none were found to have merit matters. 

If you are intellectually honest, what would you say about someone who had 8 previous criminal charges, all of them dismissed or found not guilty?  Would you be saying "Yeah, you can see there's a history there," or would you be saying "They didn't get convicted on those?"

If you are being intellectually honest then you will not call Chavez a "good cop." He abused his power and murdered one of the people he is supposed to be protecting and serving.

It is simultaneously unsurprising and flabbergasting that conservatives allege that Chavez, the convicted murderer, is the good guy and Floyd, the murdered, is the bad guy.

[Sun_Worshiper]

What concerns me for society is that if the pressure to immediately treat all kinds of actions by police as criminal, then two things are likely to happen:

Fortunately you have nothing to be concerned about, since police almost never face criminal accountability when they kill civilians: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-still-so-rare-for-police-officers-to-face-legal-consequences-for-misconduct/

[marshwiggle]

What concerns me for society is that if the pressure to immediately treat all kinds of actions by police as criminal, then two things are likely to happen:

Fortunately you have nothing to be concerned about, since police almost never face criminal accountability when they kill civilians: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-still-so-rare-for-police-officers-to-face-legal-consequences-for-misconduct/

Just to be clear: my perception of the situation is irrelevant. What matters is the perception of current police and potential recruits.  Time will tell.

[mahagonny]

You seem to think that people are upset about Floyd's death because they believe he is a flawless human being or a hero, but I have never heard anyone say those things about him.

Not that at all. It's not that he needed to be a flawless human being before he would get a lot of sympathy from me. All he would have needed to be was a person of average quality instead of markedly below.
Watch the news. They are practically inviting Floyd's family into your living room. "There he is, in the Cup Foods Market, just standing there, not being any trouble to anyone.  That could be you or me. Look, he even thanked the person working at the counter!'
Well, what's the correct etiquette for addressing a person who just gave you merchandise for counterfeit money? Gratitude I guess.
Uhm, no, that could not be you or me, compassionate anchor person. I've never been in a convenience store high on speedballs, making a scene. If you knew this man you'd run from him. You would not introduce him to your daughter. He's so brazen he doesn't even drive home after ripping off the store. Then when they come out to find him to confront him about his 'error' and give him a chance to make amends, he brushes them off. Then he still doesn't leave, he sits and hangs out. When the police get there he goes into an obnoxious histrionic fit.
"Black Americans have to go through this every day of their lives." Yada yada yada.

[ciao_yall]

1. Cops will quit or retire, and fewer people will become cops in the first place, leading to a shortage.

Great! So there will be enough budget to hire social workers to deal with the mentally ill; afterschool programs for at-risk youth; and drug treatment programs instead of jail for low-level offenders.

2. Cops will avoid all kinds of interactions with suspects, which will ultimately mean them avoiding areas with high crime, which means avoiding the most disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Like thinking twice before pulling someone over for a busted tail light, going 5 miles over the speed limit, or having an air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror?

If police feel the deck is stacked against them, these things will happen. As long as the charges and convictions of police are in situations that most police see as definitely wrong, this won't be a problem.

"Defund the police" is very much a "be careful what you wish for" scenario.

Sounds like a winner all around to me.

[Parasaurolophus]

That's the thing, though, mahagonny. By your measures, Chauvin should also count as a person of "markedly below average" quality.

[Descartes]

1. Cops will quit or retire, and fewer people will become cops in the first place, leading to a shortage.

Great! So there will be enough budget to hire social workers to deal with the mentally ill; afterschool programs for at-risk youth; and drug treatment programs instead of jail for low-level offenders.

2. Cops will avoid all kinds of interactions with suspects, which will ultimately mean them avoiding areas with high crime, which means avoiding the most disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Like thinking twice before pulling someone over for a busted tail light, going 5 miles over the speed limit, or having an air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror?

If police feel the deck is stacked against them, these things will happen. As long as the charges and convictions of police are in situations that most police see as definitely wrong, this won't be a problem.

"Defund the police" is very much a "be careful what you wish for" scenario.

Sounds like a winner all around to me.

Nah.  If someone is casing my neighborhood while everyone is at work, appears to not have a reason to be there, and it is learned from running the vehicle registration they don't live anywhere near there, I want the police to find a reason to chat with that person and inquire. even if that means stopping them for some chicken shit pretextual reason.  I don't want them waiting until there's a verifiable crime that they can prove, such as "well someone just chased this guy out of their house after he broke in and assaulted them, now we have enough to try to stop him!"

I do NOT want the police to mind their own business and not bother with what you might see as inconsequential traffic stops.

[marshwiggle]

1. Cops will quit or retire, and fewer people will become cops in the first place, leading to a shortage.

Great! So there will be enough budget to hire social workers to deal with the mentally ill; afterschool programs for at-risk youth; and drug treatment programs instead of jail for low-level offenders.

Do people who say things like this assume that lots of cops are paid to sit around eating bon-bons? The only way taking money away from police for those things makes sense is if a lot of police time is wasted. If police are going to have to do less investigation of crimes, and less responding to violent situations, then that's not a good thing.

It strikes me as kind of ironic that academics, who are often offended at cuts in government funding because of the harm it does to the important work they do, are convinced that cuts to other areas funded by the government are totally justified because there is so much waste.

[mahagonny]

That's the thing, though, mahagonny. By your measures, Chauvin should also count as a person of "markedly below average" quality.

And getting treated like one.

Floyd's family got their share of the $27 million which was quite a take considering how many years he would likely have lived, the way he was going. If I forget to pray for them...sorry.

The George Floyd hysteria is also paying big dividends to the anti-racism industry. Are you following the developments of the CRT infiltration into the schools? Well played, liberals.

[Kron3007]

1. Cops will quit or retire, and fewer people will become cops in the first place, leading to a shortage.

Great! So there will be enough budget to hire social workers to deal with the mentally ill; afterschool programs for at-risk youth; and drug treatment programs instead of jail for low-level offenders.

2. Cops will avoid all kinds of interactions with suspects, which will ultimately mean them avoiding areas with high crime, which means avoiding the most disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Like thinking twice before pulling someone over for a busted tail light, going 5 miles over the speed limit, or having an air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror?

If police feel the deck is stacked against them, these things will happen. As long as the charges and convictions of police are in situations that most police see as definitely wrong, this won't be a problem.

"Defund the police" is very much a "be careful what you wish for" scenario.

Sounds like a winner all around to me.

Nah.  If someone is casing my neighborhood while everyone is at work, appears to not have a reason to be there, and it is learned from running the vehicle registration they don't live anywhere near there, I want the police to find a reason to chat with that person and inquire. even if that means stopping them for some chicken shit pretextual reason.  I don't want them waiting until there's a verifiable crime that they can prove, such as "well someone just chased this guy out of their house after he broke in and assaulted them, now we have enough to try to stop him!"

I do NOT want the police to mind their own business and not bother with what you might see as inconsequential traffic stops.

Where's your card comrad?  That is basically what you are saying...ironic coming from the right.

 

[pgher]

If it is "highly predictable" that a law enforcement officer crush you to death for a $20 counterfeit bill, then that's the problem. Regardless of who you are or what you did. Anyone who thinks that George Floyd's past behavior is at all relevant is badly missing the point.

Suppose a first year university student commits plagiarism and gets kicked out of university. Some (many?) may argue that the punishment was excessive, and were the actions of a vindictive administrator. Does that mean that the act of plagiarism is, in  that case, irrelevant?

Expulsion is a punishment for the offense of violating the academic integrity policy. We can disagree about whether it's proportional, but it's still the officially-sanctioned punishment in this hypothetical scenario.

Being choked to death is not the officially-sanctioned punishment for any crime in the United States, least of all for having a checkered legal history.

But being arrested is state-sanctioned for commiting a crime, including passing counterfeit money. Unless you are going to claim that Chauvin was planning to just kill some random civilian, the only reason he was subduing Floyd was because of the latter's criminal activity. So if "Floyd's past behaviour" included the action for which he was arrested, then suggesting it was not "at all relevant" is ridiculous.

To extend the analogy, it is not up to an individual instructor to expel a student over plagiarism. Said instructor gathers evidence, submits it to a process that evaluates the circumstances, etc. Similarly, it is not up to an individual police officer to decide a particular person's guilt and sentence.

[spork]

I think it's important to note that Derek Chauvin had a long history of complaints against him, approximately once per year during his nineteen years with the Minneapolis PD, many of which involved the use of excessive force, including choking maneuvers, kneeling with full body weight on prone and handcuffed arrestees, etc. The Minneapolis PD could have dealt with him in a productive manner long ago, but chose not to. He was a terrible police officer who never should not have been allowed to remain on the force, but in nearly every instance, the police department decided he had followed official policy. I say "nearly" because apparently he was officially reprimanded a couple of times, but that was a meaningless outcome that in no way altered his behavior.

While the Minneapolis PD might not be rotten from top to bottom, it's definitely got problems that go far beyond Chauvin.