Police brutality and police reform (US)
couple links. im sure you can find others. the video is essentially showing the killing so be advised.
Minneapolis police were called to a scene involving a possibly bad check at a grocery store. police say he was resisting arrest. one officer is shown to kneel with full body weight on Floyds neck, while Floyd tells the officer he cant breathe, the officer continues to suffocate Floyd until he appears to become unconscious and Floyd dies either on the way to hospital/or at hospital depending on the reports.
police initially recorded the event as "suspect had medical distress".
this is one of those events where i believe that every single officer at the scene should be fired at the minimum for allowing Floyd to be killed in their presence and obviously the officer killing floyd to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. i have not looked up the minnesota murder statutes but in my jurisdiction this would seem to be Murder 2, imo which is the "depraved mind" willful disregard for human life non premeditation version.
i dont know if there will be much discussion on this one as it appears fairly cut and dry that this was an absolute unnecessary killing over some groceries in a depression. but i thought it deserved a thread.
more nonesense: crazy homeless just stabs random people with scissors. so many stories like this..
Hours after the mass shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl celebration,
Trump bragged about how little he did as president to pass gun safety legislation.
His willingness to joke about shooting people himself,
his support for conservatives who have fatally shot people,
his call to have shoplifters shot as they leave the store and his
obsequiousness to the gun lobby make one thing clear:
He doesn’t actually see gun violence as a prob
Remember that the problem that both sides are trying to fix is not allowing bad men to have guns in public. In its simplest form, Dems attempt to maximize the amount of bad men in public (being super lenient on crime) while trying to minimize the amount of guns (pass stricter gun laws) while repubs try to minimize the amount of bad men in public (harsh on crime) and maximize the guns (lenient on guns).
We can go back and forth on which side has the best policy to reduce gun violence in America, but to suggest one side isn't doing anything while the other is doing everything is complete nonsense.
Remember that the problem that both sides are trying to fix is not allowing bad men to have guns in public. In its simplest form, Dems attempt to maximize the amount of bad men in public (being super lenient on crime) while trying to minimize the amount of guns (pass stricter gun laws) while repubs try to minimize the amount of bad men in public (harsh on crime) and maximize the guns (lenient on guns).
We can go back and forth on which side
Lol @Dems being super lenient on crime. Just because Hannity told you this, doesn't make it true. He's a plumber.
Do you ever run any of your thoughts by a common sense filter? You clearly don't understand how unhinged you sound to normal people. Do you live in some sort of bubble where there is literally nobody sane around to tell you how far down the rabbit hole you've gone?
Lol @Dems being super lenient on crime. Just because Hannity told you this, doesn't make it true. He's a plumber.
Do you ever run any of your thoughts by a common sense filter? You clearly don't understand how unhinged you sound to normal people. Do you live in some sort of bubble where there is literally nobody sane around to tell you how far down the rabbit hole you've gone?
I mean abolish the police didn't work very well
There is no mainstream "left" party in America. There is a centre right party, called the "Democrats", and a batshit insane far right party, called the "Republicans". "Abolish the police" might have been some fringe commie thing, but it definitely wasn't a "dem" thing.
In comparison to the UK - our tories would be their "dems" over there. Our labour party, which is basically a centre left party in the rest of the civilised world, would be some fringe leftist group over there. America just took the Overton window and shifted it by about 50% of its own width to the right in the last 8 years.
That wasn't a "dem" thing. That was some hippy leftist thing. Those people are as touched as the MAGA brigade, just in a different place.
The radical abolish the police was ofc a radical extremist thing in a few places, but in many other places being told to under-police minorities after Floyd caused a ton more deaths among minorities.
And it caused a ton of cops to quit.
Data is hard to disentangle from COVID lockdown/reopening effects but it's fairly clear.
Trying to assuage BLM fanatical requests even a little bit costed many more black lives than police takes from unarmed black men in decades.
I get that they kinda had to given the absurd popularity of BLM among their voters for a little while but it was a lot of bloodshed which could have been avoided if democrat voters weren't so insane as to believe the BLM narrative of minorities being actually over policed (while it is clearly the opposite)
The radical abolish the police was ofc a radical extremist thing in a few places, but in many other places being told to under-police minorities after Floyd caused a ton more deaths among minorities.
And it caused a ton of cops to quit.
Data is hard to disentangle from COVID lockdown/reopening effects but it's fairly clear.
Trying to assuage BLM fanatical requests even a little bit costed many more black lives than police takes from unarmed b
"Leftists extrimists exist so we should hear out rightist extrimists" is a hot take, but, just no. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I consider MAGA rightist extremists.
"Leftists extrimists exist so we should hear out rightist extrimists" is a hot take, but, just no. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I consider MAGA rightist extremists.
? I am saying even going -20% with police in minority neighborhoods means a ton more people die.
It's not about hearing any MAGA, just have the take on law enforcement of Bill Clinton, that's enough.
Do you realize a lot of Dem intelligentsia was actually out with claims than more policing doesn't reduce crime? It lasted 18-24 months
? I am saying even going -20% with police in minority neighborhoods means a ton more people die.
It's not about hearing any MAGA, just have the take on law enforcement of Bill Clinton, that's enough
Cool, I think we're in violent agreement on this point then.
As an aside, I ****ing hate idologues and I hate groupthink. When that **** was happening in San Francisco and the hippies set up their own little fiefdom with so-called community policing, and a subset of the people here were supporting it and saying what a good idea it was, I spoke up. And whenever somebody goes off on one about abolishing police or prisons or whatever, I speak up. As an ex (hmm.. are we ever ex?) criminal, I know what a bad idea that is.
Cool, I think we're in violent agreement on this point then.
As an aside, I ****ing hate idologues and I hate groupthink. When that **** was happening in San Francisco and the hippies set up their own little fiefdom with so-called community policing, and a subset of the people here were supporting it and saying what a good idea it was, I spoke up. And whenever somebody goes off on one about abolishing police or prisons or whatever, I speak u
Ok so we should be in agreement in general that BLM costed a ton of black lives
d2 Goat
Spoiler
There should be a police discussion thread imo.
Remember that the problem that both sides are trying to fix is not allowing bad men to have guns in public. In its simplest form, Dems attempt to maximize the amount of bad men in public (being super lenient on crime) while trying to minimize the amount of guns (pass stricter gun laws) while repubs try to minimize the amount of bad men in public (harsh on crime) and maximize the guns (lenient on guns).
We can go back and forth on which side
That's a great way to put it. It makes crystal clear what should be done - get the bad men off the streets AND minimize the number of guns. IMO, anyone who doesn't support both of those things has blood on his hands.
No, the Kulaks were simply deemed too successful (even as a humble middle class of its time, which also doesn't compare with a Billionaire's case). They were deemed fraudulent by the state for simply being too resourceful as a private entity - "orange man bad" applied to farmers who were the most successful category of the peasant.
I'm not sure if you're trying to strawman the Communist NY-takeover point I'm making with that comment.
No, the Kulaks were simply deemed too successful (even as a humble middle class of its time, which also doesn't compare with a Billionaire's case). They were deemed fraudulent by the state for simply being too resourceful as a private entity - "orange man bad" applied to farmers who were the most successful category of the peasant.
I'm not sure if you're trying to strawman the Communist NY-takeover point I'm making with that comment.
TIL that a "businessman" who has committed fraud his whole career being prosecuted for fraud is "communism". That's certainly.... a hot take.
Spoiler
I'm sure you must feel the same way about Michael Avenatti going to prison for fraud - i.e. that his prosecution and conviction were politically motivated, thus communism. If not, please explain the difference.
Repiblicans: Vote for us, we are the party of law and order.
Also Republicans: Until you charge one of us, that is! Oh, we meant law and order for the other guys, duh. Charging us is cOMmUniSM.
You're probably being sarcastic, but just in case, there is one, which IIRC started off as the George Floyd thread but then morphed into discussion of policing in general:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/285/p...
Also this one, mostly about sentencing and incarceration:
That's a great way to put it. It makes crystal clear what should be done - get the bad men off the streets AND minimize the number of guns. IMO, anyone who doesn't support both of those things has blood on his hands.
Sure , but one of the options is fully constitutional, the other mostly isn't, so until you change the constitution it's kinda not close what should be done.
Btw approx one households every 3 has guns both in Switzerland and in Finland but "for some reasons" they don't have any kind of significant gun crime
Sure , but one of the options is fully constitutional, the other mostly isn't, so until you change the constitution it's kinda not close what should be done.
Btw approx one households every 3 has guns both in Switzerland and in Finland but "for some reasons" they don't have any kind of significant gun crime
It would be fully constitutional to only allow well regulated militias access to have access to weapons. Or at least it would be if the Supreme Court weren't full of corrupt people owned by the gun lobby.
It would be fully constitutional to only allow well regulated militias access to have access to weapons. Or at least it would be if the Supreme Court weren't full of corrupt people owned by the gun lobby.
Lol comon it's a list: a well regulated militia AND the right to keep and bear arms, shallnot to be infringed. That comma is an AND. And it's very clear from the drafting of the amendment itself.
