W
WingedHussar
Guest
It can certainly affect what is and is not reasonable force.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Not once he is under their control, and certainly not once he isn’t even responsive.It can certainly affect what is and is not reasonable force
R
RobertAdams
Guest
I get it, being clear in one’s opinion about facts is being “adverse to talking about them” but fencewalker trolling ala “i’m just sayin” is not…
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Victoria33 mentioned these things, as if they mitigate Chauvin’s conduct.Who said it did?
S
StudentMI
Guest
Please do not call me a troll.
He was on fentanyl and his body showed signs of recent meth use.
He was on fentanyl and his body showed signs of recent meth use.
S
sallybutler
Guest
I vote that all overweight people and people over a certain age immediately be treated as potential violent people because they are likely to have diabetes. And diabetes, especially if not controlled properly can lead to violent issues when the blood sugar changes drastically. Adrenalin rushes (aka flight or fight hormone) will lead to heightened blood sugar which can be worse in diabetics.Police Body Cam footage has not been released yet. I am hearing it does exist but probably won’t come out until the trial. Floyd stood at 6’6", what if there was a physical altercation? And what if he was on a mixture of drugs in his body. Some of this has come out, some is still unknown… but it really shows a trial hopefully will sort this out. I think I heard he did have drugs in his system but I don’t care to misstate what it was.
What if it was some speed like drug? Methamphetamine or something? A lot to be determined.
I also vote that all males with long hair be treated as potential violent people because they are probably using drugs of some sort. Also any white male that has shaved their head because they are probably a white supremacist and everyone knows they are prone to violence (as opposed to an old guy trying to pretend they aren’t going bald).
What other stupid stereotypes can we come up with as to why people should be automatically treated as guilty of some kind of crime.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Fine then. Thought you were saying I thought that.Victoria33 mentioned these things, as if they mitigate Chauvin’s conduct.
R
RobertAdams
Guest
Hello, i didnt call you “a troll” (generally referring to a fake account set up to do nothing but troll), but was under the impression that you were “trolling,” i.e. throwing out provocative statements to elicit a response (something commonly done in online discussions even by those for whom it is not their predominant form of discourse).
S
StudentMI
Guest
Nope. I was saying bring up the drugs in his system and you get lectured or accused of not caring about his death or racism or BLM etc.Hello, i didnt call you “a troll” (generally referring to a fake account set up to do nothing but troll), but was under the impression that you were “trolling,” i.e. throwing out provocative statements to elicit a response (something commonly done in online discussions even by those for whom it is not their predominant form of discourse).
R
RobertAdams
Guest
I see. It does appear that you can’t say “he was on drugs” when a man is killed by police without people asking you questions like “why does that matter”?
Do you find this to be unfair?
Do you find this to be unfair?
S
StudentMI
Guest
Unfair? A bit. But understandable given how people are. I like to know all the facts of a case, the good and the bad. A more nuanced understanding is always better than good guys vs bad guys.I see. It does appear that you can’t say “he was on drugs” when a man is killed by police without people asking you questions like “why does that matter”?
Do you find this to be unfair?
P
pnewton
Guest
Size can make a difference in determining level of force prior to being restrained.Does him being on drugs or being 6’6 make a difference to you?
However, he was also already handcuffed, which makes the size and possible drug use moot.
My point is that accuracy matters more than rhetoric. The incarceration rate for white men has more than doubled since 1970 and the war on drugs. The racial disparity is still significant of course. The point is, that there is as much an issue with the current police state mentality as there is with racism, at least in a lot of places. Change needs to be driven by data, and the more the better. Slogans and exaggerative rhetoric are good for motivation, but cannot be the basis of directed change.is accurate but I doubt it addresses the point being made.
Unfair. I know it is not popular to resist the polarization on all issues, but it is not trolling. If you want to call it fence-walking, then that is your business. Insult if you must.but fencewalker trolling ala
R
RobertAdams
Guest
Hello, you may have noticed that I haven’t called every post trolling or fencewalking, but rather a specific set of posts which bring up intoxication of the victim without answering the question of whether that matters and why. I dont think this is unfair or insulting anymore that it is unfair or insulting to point out an ad hominem, appeal to authority, etc.
Looking at the rest of your post I am most interested in the part “the racial disparity is still significant of course. The point is…”
This is perhaps where we part ways for a few reasons:
a) I dont think that acknowledging a data point to be significant then treating it as an outlier til proven otherwise is a sound way to understand things.
b) “significance” in this case refers to a specific group of people being incarcerated for years, the break up families, the loss of voting rights, and the loss of access to the majority of employers. Families, employment, and voting all being of course means to overcome the impact of concentrated poverty, crime, and limited resources. I dont believe it’s sound logic to know this exists, and start with the premise that it does not effect the policing situation you are currently analyzing unless you can demonstrate conclusively that an act was done with express purpose of reinforcing this system.
c) I think that aknowledging in a general problem of over incarceration and loss of constitutional projections against unreasonable arrests/search and seizures but, treating racism as a footnote or unfortunate side effect is sophomoric at best. American history is staring us in the face. Racism is the salient issue that lead to a specific group of Americans being legally enslaved, and legally deprived of rights for hundreds of years and the vast majority of our history. We organized our system of representation around it, fought a war over it, had dramatic ongoing civil rights battles over it…
In a sane world one would look at problems in policing/the legal system, look at the evidence from American history and the culprit with weight of historic evidence; racism, would be one of your starting points for ruling out and formulating your analysis.
d) while I appreciate the appeal to data and facts, I dont believe I am in the camp that lacks an appreciation for these. Certainly, race relations is a matter where I have a lot to learn and welcome facts, information, data, but I have made an effort to begin studying the topic in a ham handed novice way. What did you (or other posters) think of Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow” when you read it?
Looking at the rest of your post I am most interested in the part “the racial disparity is still significant of course. The point is…”
This is perhaps where we part ways for a few reasons:
a) I dont think that acknowledging a data point to be significant then treating it as an outlier til proven otherwise is a sound way to understand things.
b) “significance” in this case refers to a specific group of people being incarcerated for years, the break up families, the loss of voting rights, and the loss of access to the majority of employers. Families, employment, and voting all being of course means to overcome the impact of concentrated poverty, crime, and limited resources. I dont believe it’s sound logic to know this exists, and start with the premise that it does not effect the policing situation you are currently analyzing unless you can demonstrate conclusively that an act was done with express purpose of reinforcing this system.
c) I think that aknowledging in a general problem of over incarceration and loss of constitutional projections against unreasonable arrests/search and seizures but, treating racism as a footnote or unfortunate side effect is sophomoric at best. American history is staring us in the face. Racism is the salient issue that lead to a specific group of Americans being legally enslaved, and legally deprived of rights for hundreds of years and the vast majority of our history. We organized our system of representation around it, fought a war over it, had dramatic ongoing civil rights battles over it…
In a sane world one would look at problems in policing/the legal system, look at the evidence from American history and the culprit with weight of historic evidence; racism, would be one of your starting points for ruling out and formulating your analysis.
d) while I appreciate the appeal to data and facts, I dont believe I am in the camp that lacks an appreciation for these. Certainly, race relations is a matter where I have a lot to learn and welcome facts, information, data, but I have made an effort to begin studying the topic in a ham handed novice way. What did you (or other posters) think of Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow” when you read it?
S
StudentMI
Guest
Never read it. Ever read American Negro Slave Revolts by Herbert Aptheker? That’s on my to read list.What did you (or other posters) think of Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow” when you read it?
R
RobertAdams
Guest
I havent. Let me know if you think it’s good and worth reading. I’m always looking for recommendations.
S
StudentMI
Guest
The description from Amazon sounds interesting. Apparently the author shows that such revolts were exceedingly common.
Time on the Cross looks interesting as well. Supposedly more of an economic look at it.
Time on the Cross looks interesting as well. Supposedly more of an economic look at it.
A
Annie
Guest
I have not read the book, just the summary on Wikipedia. I think it would be interesting to read, but I wonder if she takes into account the fact that the black community, black pastors, etc., wanted heavier penalties for using crack cocaine because it was devastating their communities?What did you (or other posters) think of Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow” when you read it?
Clearly this ended up with an unintended side effect which has also been devastating to the community.
I myself am for massive changes to the criminal justice system; I think if we made changes which were more in line with outcomes we could solve a lot of problems.
R
RobertAdams
Guest
Hello Annie, I would reccomend reading this one. I think you’d find that the author is actually quite aware of the nuances in how the black community has viewed crime and punishment.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I sure don’t favor police doing it, but you actually can control someone by putting weight on his neck. I have never done it to a person, but I have done it to calves many times, including calves weighing hundreds of pounds. It’s the only way you can actually control those powerful animals because neck muscles are weak from side to side, even with a powerful animal, and you can’t raise your body without raising your head.You cant keep someone down by kneeling on their neck unless they’ve already been incapacitated.
V
Victoria33
Guest
We don’t know if he was murdered. Those are inflammatory words, everyone deserves a fair trial.Does him being on drugs or being 6’6 make a difference to you? I dont think victims’ height or being intoxicated should be considered mitigating factors when it comes to evaluating whether the decision to murder them was ethically sound.
Does the fact he has drugs in his system matter? Why not have all of the facts? Why not be informed, a jury certainly will be informed of this. Height could matter as well.
It appears there is Police (body cam) video footage out there. What if it shows there was an altercation? The video footage will probably only be released in the trial. There may well be 4 different views of what happened. For all we know, there might have been a reason they thought it necessary to subdue him. I don’t support how he was subdued but it was an approved procedure apparently. That’s been posted here about 5 times.
Yes, some drugs might up someone’s stamina alright.
I’m trying to make an informed decision, not an uninformed decision.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.