Derek Chauvin might get acquitted(right before the election, no doubt)
- Thread starter Amun Ra
- Start date
From what you read? You did view the video of the interaction between the officers and Floyd right? How did the video make you feel? Do you feel police officers should have the authority to mete out justice as they personally determine as appropriate? How about unwritten rules where the police department or even most of the justice system effectively views rights for known career criminals as optional?
Torture and the death penalty seem like harsh punishments for resisting arrest and having a lengthy criminal record, for which Floyd already served time for, doesn’t it?
Any person or entity that condones the behavour of the officers that were involved in Floyd’s death are on the wrong side of a emotionally charged issue that seemingly has the vast majority of people feeling the officers went too far. Therefore, that issue will likely have serious political repercussions for Conversatives.
I understand law enforcement may be an important part of the voting base for Republicans. Republicans are understandibly reluctant to offend this group. However, it seems to me the officer’s jobs may be easier by having consistent and transparent guidelines to go by. A well thought out plan for police reform may be received better than Republicans fear.
From my own experience: I received a speeding ticket in California while driving my car. I attended a driver improvement course where the instructor was a highway patrol officer. This officer asked each student individually if the the officer that wrote them the ticket was professional. I said, “Well, I like to speed and the officer likes to write tickets”. The instructor was not satisfied with my answer and pressed on by asking me again. I said in no uncertain terms the officer was indeed fully professional, as was my experience.
The above story was an example of the police policing the police.
Imagine that.
Like everyone else, I didn't see the whole interaction. The law is there to separate justice from emotion. Anyone who judges on something based on emotion is a bad judge and their vision is usually clouded.
Let me ask you this...was there any evidence that the cop killed Floyd solely because he was black....because that's pretty much what democrats are saying. They're so emotionally charged and ready to play the race card, they will do it at every opportunity. If you saw a black model and you didn't like the shirt she was wearing and said "I don't really like that shirt", the left would call you a racist because you're white and criticizing a black persons clothes.
Is the cop on trial for being racist or is that just a political narrative? I think he is on trial for murder, which he is certainly guilty of - in my opinion.
I hate to see you skating around what should be obvious. Ok, based on what you could see in the video, how do you feel?
Does the video prove the officer was racist? No. Does the video show the officer used excessive force against Floyd? Most people, inciuding bystanders in the video, would say a resounding “Yes”. What about you? Now then, with the majority of people reasonibly believing the officers used excessive force against Floyd, the question is why?
Why would an officer use excessive force against a citizen. In public? While being recorded? It sure seems the officer felt justified in his actions. The officer certainly seemed in control of himself and his captive. In what circumstances would an officer feel justified in using excessive force? Did he hate the guy? If the officer hated the guy, why? Was is because Floyd resisted arrest? Resisted the officer’s authority with the officer feeling God-dammed if anyone was going to resist his authority? This perp needed to be taught a lesson and he found the right guy, an officer with 20 complaints on his record to do it? Did this well experienced officer consider he could get into trouble for using excessive force? Or did the officer believe he would not be seriously questioned by his superiors over his actions because Floyd was a career criminal?
The preceeding scenario and questions are seemingly the best case scenario for the officer’s position. There are other reasons why the officer could have hated Floyd. It could have been because they already knew each other and had prior bad blood between them? It could have been Floyd’s criminal record. It could have been race. It could have been species. Maybe this officer hates everyone. Equally. What would you say an appropiate punishment for hating everybody should be?
Whatever it is, the Conservatives might want to consider dropping being on the wrong side of this issue like a bad habit. If they want a chance to avoid being handcuffed and smothered in the upcoming elections, that is.
If the victim wasn't black or if the cop wasn't white, how much attention would you be giving this?
The cop is absolutely on trial for being racist. He's not guilty of murder. Murder is the premeditated intent to kill another human being. Do you think he just said, "Hey, let me murder this guy while these pedestrians film me and tell me to get off him"? He knew he was being filmed, so it's highly unlikely he was trying to kill him.
This was manslaughter for sure. As for who is guilty of it, him or the MPD that trained him that way, I'm not a juror so I don't know. I definitely haven't heard all the evidence, but I do know the cop wont get a fair trial. He will be convicted of being racist.
You just sound fucking evil and immoral to the core. Yet we have no more right to kill you as anyone had to kill Floyd.
I did not start this thread. The matter became top of my mind after you started this thread.
Please stop deflecting. Although you are the OP, you are avoiding answering reasonable questions by other posters. Why? Are you reading things that you don’t want to hear?
How about the idea of seriously considering all points of view on a issue before reaching a permanent, inflexable position? Your not answering my questions shows you are being defensive and are not willing to entertain your position has fundamental flaws. If this is really how you wish to operate in a political forum, where contests of ideas are a foundation of poster participation, another question presents itself. That question is why bother to post stuff you are not willing to go through a validation process, sometimes through a vigorous validation process? Or, on well thought through positions, vigorously defend? I suppose there is nothing wrong with hair salon type postings in a politics forum, but it seems such a waste of time.
Please answer my questions and either reconsider your position or provide substantive counterpoints.
Thank you in advance.
That is a question you should ask yourself. You're the one who's going with the narrative. I'm defending nothing. I just posted the article so you all could get another point of view.