Toribash
Originally Posted by Thorn View Post
the nature of floyd's character is irrelevant; the protests are not about him specifically and I think that's very obvious

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests


Originally Posted by Thorn View Post
and arguing about floyd's nature to discredit the movement is myopic and immature

The death itself was fucked up and the cop should definitely be tried for murder. But if I remember correctly, right when George Floyd was murdered all the headlines were like 'White Cop murders Black Man' and the media was automatically trying to pin the murder as a hate-crime, meanwhile the newly released Body-Cam footage pretty much shows it was never about race, and in my opinion this makes all the rioting even more silly.



Remember this? Still think they are going to do it ?

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/George-Floyd-will-tour-the-South-in-hologram-15443773.php
Last edited by McFarbo; Aug 6, 2020 at 05:03 AM.

what's your point? I could make guesses, but it would be much easier if you simply said it. you're probably saying that because they are called George Floyd protests by Wikipedia, it must be only about the killing of George Floyd. which is wrong, but just tell us what is your point.

Originally Posted by McFarbo View Post
The death itself was fucked up and the cop should definitely be tried for murder. But if I remember correctly, right when George Floyd was murdered all the headlines were like 'White Cop murders Black Man' and the media was automatically trying to pin the murder as a hate-crime

Why would they report a killing by the police as anything else than that? And of course the media will respond like that, it's been proven by numerous studies that police kill proportionally far more black people than white. It's a thing in the US, you know. Been like that for decades.

EDIT: after a quick search, I can't find an article that paints the killing as a hate crime. there are articles about Floyd's niece saying that, but that's more of an article about her saying it, not a journalistic piece discussing (or even raging) how it's a hate crime.

Originally Posted by McFarbo View Post
meanwhile the newly released Body-Cam footage pretty much shows it was never about race, and in my opinion this makes all the rioting even more silly.

What makes it "never about race" in your mind? I'd like to know. Because no racial slurs were said?

I don't think you quite realize how deep the systemic racism goes. US is often in the spotlight, but it happens in all white-majority countries, too, to varying degrees. fudgiebalz linked to a document (thank you, I tried to find that document but couldn't) filled with studies regarding the subject. Let me copy some statements here:

- Black people facing similar low-level charges as white people were 68 percent less likely to see those charges dismissed in court. More than 90 percent of the arrest warrants stemming from failure to pay/failure to appear were issued for black people.
- Today, Blacks are 3.7x as likely to be arrested for a marijuana offense as Whites, despite similar usage.
97% of “large-population counties” have racial biases in their drug offense incarceration.
- Blacks were more than twice as likely as whites to be searched after traffic stops even after controlling for related variables, though they proved to be 26 percent less likely to be in possession of illegal drugs or weapons.
- The black population of DC is 25% greater than the white population, but black people were 410% more likely to be stopped by the police than white people
- Analysis finds the bar for searching black and hispanic drivers’ cars is significantly lower than the bar for white drivers.
- Examination of federal data indicates Black Americans spend about 10% more time in prison when compared to comparable Whites who commit the same crimes.
- Between 1990 and 2010, state prosecutors struck about 53% of black people eligible for juries in criminal cases, as opposed to 26% of white people. The study’s authors testified the odds of this taking place in a race-neutral context were around 1 in 10 trillion.
- Black defendants are 4.5 times as likely to receive a death sentence as similarly-situated whites.

And so on, and so forth. And that's nowhere near to the whole; there's still the matter of education, jobs, healthcare, and so much more. The police might have not said anything racist, but the fact that they pointed a gun at an unarmed black person, used a not by-the-book restraining method that can easily become lethal, and well, KILLED him, is very much what has been studied to be systemic racism. And why the police in the US should be defunded.

also, one thing I noticed:

Originally Posted by McFarbo View Post
The death itself was fucked up and the cop should definitely be tried for murder. But

do you recognize the pattern here?
Last edited by Tonakai; Aug 6, 2020 at 01:05 PM.
Originally Posted by gunop View Post
I don't think the killing wasn't racially motivated. The new footage combined with prior evidence shows that he was on just about every drug and clearly wasn't cooperating. Particularly he had enough fentanyl for it to be lethal. One of the symptoms it causes is trouble breathing. He even tested positive for COVID for god's sake. ... the fact that he was saying "I can't breathe" before he was on the ground is just the ultimate mockery.

Only fentanyl and metamphetamine were found, which come from a single drug. "Just about every drug" is a lie. He had corona-virus far before this encounter took place, and had recovered from it. Him having enough fentanyl for it to be lethal for him is a misunderstanding of the data and/or a lie; in fact, it's a strategy often used to blame black victims as drug-crazed to make the killing seem justified. Nothing can be deducted from him saying "I can't breathe" before hitting the ground. In fact, the police drew their gun at George Floyd immediately while he had his hands visible and was in no way aggressive. Considering the fact he had already been shot before (a rather traumatic experience, I'd say), not to mention all the systemic racism that black people suffer, I'd say it's not surprising he was a little uncooperative.

Originally Posted by gunop View Post
Even besides that it's unacceptable how the media twisted it. It's disappointing that this months old information is only coming to light with the recently leaked footage. ... The body cam footage doesn't even extend to the point where he was on the ground, so we still don't even know everything that went on.

From the beginning we had footage of the police keeping their knee on Floyd's neck for almost nine minutes. It's right there, in broad daylight, no censoring. The new video shows nothing new. In fact, it shows the above-mentioned fact they had a gun on unarmed George Floyd right from the beginning, which is something that extremely rarely happens with white people.

He still died from having a knee on his neck for almost nine minutes. No amount of "he was on drugs", "he had corona-virus", "he was uncooperative", "he had a criminal past" will change that fact.

Originally Posted by gunop View Post
Systemic racism is a real issue and the fight for equality is the one good thing to come out of Floyd's death. However after all the looting and hate for the police it's hard to say if it will even net a positive outcome. People not realizing that violence is cylical is one of the greatest pitfalls of humanity. To quote Martin Luther King: "Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral"

See my earlier post on this. To summarize: Yes, it is bad, but it is a natural outcome from decades of peaceful protests that have dutifully been ignored. They have no choice; at this point, change won't happen by just yelling or kneeling or whatever from the sidelines. The authorities know this, and is why they cry for civility, which people eat up, because it's logical that violence is bad, therefore the riots are bad.

Besides, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law that outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex or national origin, was passed after six days of rioting after the death of Martin Luther King. Ironically enough, considering your quote.
Originally Posted by gunop View Post
I don't think the killing wasn't racially motivated.

Maybe not. We can't know. Doesn't make systemic racism any less of a problem.

Originally Posted by gunop View Post
The new footage combined with prior evidence shows that he was on just about every drug and clearly wasn't cooperating.

This isn't grounds for an execution.

Originally Posted by gunop View Post
Particularly he had enough fentanyl for it to be lethal. One of the symptoms it causes is trouble breathing. He even tested positive for COVID for god's sake.

The autopsy report said the reason he died was the pressure being exerted on his neck for 8 minutes.

Originally Posted by gunop View Post
Even besides that it's unacceptable how the media twisted it.

I can't really speak to media coverage as I'm not from the US, but I am curious to know what you think was twisted.

Originally Posted by gunop View Post
It's disappointing that this months old information is only coming to light with the recently leaked footage.

The toxicology report was available as a part of the autopsy report?

Originally Posted by gunop View Post
And above all, the fact that he was saying "I can't breathe" before he was on the ground is just the ultimate mockery. The body cam footage doesn't even extend to the point where he was on the ground, so we still don't even know everything that went on.

You just said fentanyl can cause trouble breathing. It could have been entirely factual. That doesn't even matter though, as it's not fucking grounds for an execution. There's also plenty of bystander videos that show what happens after.

Originally Posted by gunop View Post
Systemic racism is a real issue and the fight for equality is the one good thing to come out of Floyd's death. However after all the looting and hate for the police it's hard to say if it will even net a positive outcome. People not realizing that violence is cylical is one of the greatest pitfalls of humanity. To quote Martin Luther King: "Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral"

Looting isn't part of the movement.

I agree that hating all police and being violent isn't super helpful, but from what I've heard there have been plenty of peaceful protests but nothing has changed. I don't see many options for the protesters but to escalate if there is to be significant change.

Originally Posted by gunop View Post
It's late at night and I'll probably edit this later. Just an hour ago I thought his death was completely unacceptable, but after reading about all this new info I have to get this out before I go to bed.

Are you seriously saying his death is acceptable after seeing the footage and finding out about his drug usage?

Derek Chauvin was charged with second degree murder. The court had access to all of the information that the public has, and more. The court finds the death unacceptable.
Last edited by fudgiebalz; Aug 9, 2020 at 08:58 PM.
alright guy
@Tonakai, what do you imagine will happen if the police are defunded (as you want)? What do you think law and order and justice will look like?
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
@Tonakai, what do you imagine will happen if the police are defunded (as you want)? What do you think law and order and justice will look like?

I can answer this,Imagine you have a domestic dispute and are yelling at your wife, a neighbor calls a noise complaint in and a social worker arrives and provides you counseling on the spot, you feel rehabilitated and no longer have the need to yell at your wife. Today what happens is you spend a night in jail and you get a criminal record. Congrats.


The money that was used for militarization of the police is now transferred to providing healthcare for the junkies they keep throwing in prison who then get more drugs there instead of getting off drugs.


Defunding the police looks like Britain and Sweden, you don't need a police man to tell you not to do drugs, you don't need a police man to have an automatic rifle and shoot 300 bullets and miss every single one and hit innocent bystanders that were driving in a high-speed marijuana possession chase.




You don't need a policeman to jail a criminal that robbed you, you just need your money and your stuff back, like I give a fuck about some mugger taking 300 bucks from my wallet, mugger don't need 300 bucks he needs a career and way to pay for living, I need my 300 bucks. Today all I get is that guy goes to prison for 3 years I have to pay for his stay with my tax money and I am out 300 bucks nobody will ever give me that money back, good luck suing the broke dude that robbed you.




The solution is not more money for police, its to get to the core of why the crime happened and prevent it. Reroute the money to that.
🫷🦚🫸
I think people on the left have an unmatched propensity for creating and latching onto vague and divisive political slogans. "Defund the police" is the latest example, as the more rational will explain that it doesn't mean what the words mean. Other examples are Believe All Women, and ACAB. This kind of rhetoric stands opposite to productive discussion. Ironically, calling it out does (Catch twenty-)too.

I think we can all agree that police departments shouldn't be getting leftover military equipment for free or at reduced prices. That kind of stuff should be reserved for the special units. I don't actually know how much of their budget is spent on unnecessary stuff like this, though. I tried looking it up, but just kept getting numbers on the police budget as a percentage of city/state spending. If it is a significant portion then yeah, pump that stuff into preventative measures. But I honestly doubt that it is a significant portion.

The world needs police. But police also need to be accountable. Police unions are very good at representing their officers, at times to the detriment of justice. Laws like qualified immunity to set unreasonably high bars for prosecuting police officers are just bad.

I admit that I haven't been looking, but I've yet to see a good example for a situation where we would normally call police officers that shouldn't require police officers. The domestic violence one sirkill1 mentioned seems especially weird to me, as they can easily get violent.

From what I've seen, police spending is a not insignificant factor in the reduction of crime.


Right now, it just doesn't seem like the answer to me.
Last edited by fudgiebalz; Aug 10, 2020 at 07:35 PM.
alright guy
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz View Post


Right now, it just doesn't seem like the answer to me.

The pro-arrest program did not generally increase victim reporting to or satisfaction with police, but it made women more reluctant to seek state intervention. Women were right to worry that calling the cops would result in their partners’ incarceration, job loss, or deportation, or even the woman’s own arrest. Research in California revealed that the adoption of mandatory arrest policies increased arrests of men by 60 percent and arrests of women by 400 percent. The primary deterrent effect of arrest policies, it appears, was deterring womenfrom calling for help. And this may have had deadly consequences. A 2007 study that compared domestic homicide rates among states with and without mandatory arrest laws and within states before and after such laws found that the laws corresponded to a “54 percent increase in intimate partner homicides.” The author hypothesized that arrest had deterred at-risk women from seeking help.
The domestic violence law enforcement program was costly in other ways. Armed policing comes at a steep human cost. Take, for example, Derek Chauvin, the officer who killed George Floyd. In 2008, he responded to a domestic violence call, busted down the door of a bathroom where Ira Toles was hiding, and shot Tolles twice in the stomach. Chauvin claimed the unarmed Toles reached for his police gun. Toles told the Daily Beast that he remembered Chauvin breaking in and beating him but not being shot. But, he added, “I remember my baby mother screaming and crying.” Policing this domestic violence incident traumatized the victim, left Toles with holes in his stomach and a misdemeanor conviction, and garnered Chauvin a medal of valor.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.c...ce-history.amp




Interesting read, long story short no. Police should not be responding to domestic violence calls.
Last edited by sir; Aug 11, 2020 at 08:08 AM. Reason: Fixed font color
🫷🦚🫸
Originally Posted by sirkill1 View Post
Interesting read, long story short no. Police should not be responding to domestic violence calls.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear.


I believe that police should be present in those situations not to make arrests, but to ensure other (mental health) workers' and all of the involved's safety.
alright guy
Originally Posted by sirkill1
I can answer this

Is your name Tonakai mf?
Originally Posted by sirkill1 View Post
Imagine you have a domestic dispute and are yelling at your wife, a neighbor calls a noise complaint in and a social worker arrives and provides you counseling on the spot, you feel rehabilitated and no longer have the need to yell at your wife.

Because when police are called to DV situations, usually all that's needed is one party requires a kind and considerate talking to, right?
Originally Posted by sirkill1 View Post
The money that was used for militarization of the police is now transferred to providing healthcare for the junkies they keep throwing in prison who then get more drugs there instead of getting off drugs.

In America, don't you agree that a certain level of militarisation is necessary in policing, given the amount of gun violence and the culture of gun ownership? It's a classic example of the security dilemma.

Agree the war on drugs is retarded.
Originally Posted by sirkill1 View Post
Defunding the police looks like Britain and Sweden, you don't need a police man to tell you not to do drugs, you don't need a police man to have an automatic rifle and shoot 300 bullets and miss every single one and hit innocent bystanders that were driving in a high-speed marijuana possession chase.

Yeah, again tho, America can't be compared to Britain or Sweden.
Originally Posted by sirkill1 View Post
You don't need a policeman to jail a criminal that robbed you, you just need your money and your stuff back, like I give a fuck about some mugger taking 300 bucks from my wallet, mugger don't need 300 bucks he needs a career and way to pay for living, I need my 300 bucks. Today all I get is that guy goes to prison for 3 years I have to pay for his stay with my tax money and I am out 300 bucks nobody will ever give me that money back, good luck suing the broke dude that robbed you.

This isn't an argument about defunding the police. This is an argument about which form of justice is best. I think most thinking people agree that retributive justice (eye for an eye) isn't ideal. Here, you're pushing for a mixture of restorative and rehabilitive justice.
Originally Posted by sirkill1 View Post
The solution is not more money for police, its to get to the core of why the crime happened and prevent it. Reroute the money to that.

The solution ain't necesarrily defunding the police either, rather, the solution, I reckon, ought to be directed towards reforming the criminal justice system.
----------
Some people (filthy anarchists) take 'defunding' the police to mean the complete 'abolition' of policing, i.e. police aren't needed. That's silly. Anyone wanna take that line of argument here?