The all things Political topic -In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Wow the George Floyd verdict is in...very exciting, I think he will be found guilty of the second charge, I think it was third degree manslaughter, 25 years he should get ?

sorry for the double, but 'cause am certain is a misconception many will have.

keep in mind guilty on all counts ain't additive. chauvin has no criminal history, so minnesota guidelines would suggest 128-180 months with 150 being expected. 12 years and six months would be normal for second degree murder. 'course the current situation ain't normal. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

President of Chad Idriss Déby dies under somewhat odd circumstances. Specifically, in 'clashes with rebels', having officially won the presidential elections for a 6th term literally a day earlier. Would look like a coup, walk like a coup and sound like a coup- were the transitional military authority not headed by his son.

[ComradeYellow]

Xi says China 'will never seek hegemony,' no matter how strong it becomes (msn.com) Nice speech by Xi, most westerners don't trust him, and authoritarian governments suck but I think he's half sincere here.

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

President of Chad Idriss Déby dies under somewhat odd circumstances. Specifically, in 'clashes with rebels', having officially won the presidential elections for a 6th term literally a day earlier. Would look like a coup, walk like a coup and sound like a coup- were the transitional military authority not headed by his son.

Sounds like an episode of Game of Thrones... bye bye dad, thanks for keeping my seat warm or me

 

[Gorth]

7 hours ago, ComradeYellow said:

Xi says China 'will never seek hegemony,' no matter how strong it becomes (msn.com) Nice speech by Xi, most westerners don't trust him, and authoritarian governments suck but I think he's half sincere here.

Just a quick search and replace of 3 words and...

"Xi began to speak at 8.20 p.m.
"Chinese men and women," he said,
"on February 22, for the first time, I
voiced an unalterable claim in the Chinese
Reichstag. The nation listened
and understood. One statesman (Dr.
Schuschnigg) did not understand. He
was removed. My promise was fulfilled
at Beijing. I formulated a claim
again, and again the nation understood.
"Today I speak for the first time to
an entire people, as in the time of our
struggles. You know what it means.
There cannot be any more doubt. There
is not speaking one Fuhrer or one man
but the whole Chinese people. I make
my words an oath. Let other nations
examine the position and see if that is
also the case with them.
"Our foreign policy is not determined
by weltanschaaung (a way of life). Our
aim is the preservation of the Chinese
people. We are not interested in the
suppression of other people, nor to hav-
ing other people among us. Let them
be happy in their way and let us be
happy in ours. This limits our foreign
policy; but the aims of foreign policy
are neither unlimited nor erratic.
"They are not dependent on chance.
We have decided to preserve the Chinese
people. We shall protect it and
save it. Once we were told that we
were going to live under the motto the
right of self-determination. This filled
all Chinese with immense hopes: but
we have been deceived. The result was
Versailles. Our arms were stolen. De-
fenceless China was ill-treated. We
were suppressed for fifteen years. We
are not moved by hatred for others nor
rancor."

 

(a speech just before the annexation of the Sudetenland)

[ComradeYellow]

Fascists are very strange, strange people.

[Guard Dog]

No surprise in the Chauvin verdict IMO. It’s no secret I do not hold police officers in particularly high regard. I am more than willing to except that the majority of them are honest, hard-working, civil servants trying to do a good job. The problem with that majority is they tend to look the other way when the badge heavy sadists do their thing. Don’t forget three other cops stood there and did nothing and said not a word while Chauvin choked a handcuffed man to death. 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

No surprise in the Chauvin verdict IMO. It’s no secret I do not hold police officers in particularly high regard. I am more than willing to except that the majority of them are honest, hard-working, civil servants trying to do a good job. The problem with that majority is they tend to look the other way when the badge heavy sadists do their thing. Don’t forget three other cops stood there and did nothing and said not a word while Chauvin choked a handcuffed man to death. 

Well their does seem to be a general sense of surprise that he was found guilty on all 3 charges. Many people were unsure if he would be found guilty at all from what I saw on CNN

[Skarpen]

Can someone explain how he could commit 2nd 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter all at once? I don't get that part. 

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Can someone explain how he could commit 2nd 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter all at once? I don't get that part. 

Yeah I also dont get it 

[Guard Dog]

For second-degree manslaughter the jury had to answer this question: did he cause the death of George Floyd through action or inaction. Manslaughter does not require intention. If you kill someone without intending to do it it’s manslaughter. In this case the jury said yes.

third-degree murder means the jury had to answer this question: did he kill George Floyd while committing an act that was in and of it’s self illegal or an act that the perpetrator might reasonably expect a death to occur. In this case putting a handcuffed man on the ground on his chest and then kneeling on his neck. The jury said yes. Now as an aside I am a little unclear what the element of intent means in relation to a3degree murder charge. I don’t know if it is required for third-degree murder or not. The best example I could give is if you fired a weapon into a crowd of people whoever you hit you may not have intended to hit that person but you did do some thing that you might reasonably expect a death to occur.

Second-degree murder means the jury had to answer this question: did the perpetrator intend the death of the victim. Or did the perpetrator not care if the victim died during the commission of the crime. It’s the second part that they got him on second-degree murder. I believe that’s called hard minded or hard hearted indifference. But the biggest difference between a second-degree and third-degree murder I believe is the intention to harm a specific individual.

since the jury convicted him on all three counts and they did not have to do that. They could have convicted on third degree but not second. They could’ve convicted on manslaughter but not third degree or second. But since they convicted on all three I believe he will be sentenced on all three but the sentences will be concurrent. Meaning if he does 20 years for second- degree murder for example, 10 years for thirddegree murder, and five years for a second-degree manslaughter he will still only do 20 years.

Think of it like this. Suppose were talking about a man that weighs 300 pounds. So you ask the jury does the man weigh more than 100 pounds? Yes. Does the man weigh more than 200 pounds? Yes. Does the man weigh 300 pounds?. Yes.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Well their does seem to be a general sense of surprise that he was found guilty on all 3 charges. Many people were unsure if he would be found guilty at all from what I saw on CNN

Cops have been allowed to get away with a lot of deaths in this country. I remember there was a case I was following very closely. I believe it was in Iowa. A cop passing by sees a man and a woman arguing in the front yard. He decided to involve himself in it. Opened the gate went into the yard and the family dog came up to the police officer. He pulled out his weapon and fired at the dog and missed. Instead he hit the woman in the chest and killed her. 
 

he said in his report the dog bit him in that justified the shooting and he never faced manslaughter charges. Later on in a federal lawsuit the plaintiffs finally got the body cam footage of the shooting released. The cop lied he had never been bit. The city had to pay a huge settlement. As far as I know the cop is still on the job.

[ComradeYellow]

Good.  Another baby step for human civilization.  Chauvin will probably get 30 years or so.

[ComradeYellow]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/10/metro/years-boston-police-kept-secret-union-president-was-an-alleged-child-molester/

Cops.

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Cops have been allowed to get away with a lot of deaths in this country. I remember there was a case I was following very closely. I believe it was in Iowa. A cop passing by sees a man and a woman arguing in the front yard. He decided to involve himself in it. Opened the gate went into the yard and the family dog came up to the police officer. He pulled out his weapon and fired at the dog and missed. Instead he hit the woman in the chest and killed her. 
 

he said in his report the dog bit him in that justified the shooting and he never faced manslaughter charges. Later on in a federal lawsuit the plaintiffs finally got the body cam footage of the shooting released. The cop lied he had never been bit. The city had to pay a huge settlement. As far as I know the cop is still on the job.

am recalling the most obscure advice we got 'fore taking the bar exam so many decades past: "don't sympathize with lassie."

cops is supposed to involve themselves in domestic disputes. duh. imagine if cop walks on by and then next day is discovered the woman killed the guy moments after the cop were outta sight. that would be the mistake.

the dog is distracting gd. that dog doesn't care about gd, so don't let it distract you.

same scenario you describe with the cop legal on premises, but instead o' a big barking dog rushing towards the cop, is a young man with a kitchen knife.  cop pulls his gun and accidentally shots the woman.

does gd react same? gd focuses on dog. is always a mistake to focus on the animal. if you have seen wounds left by k-9 unit dogs, you would be appropriate afraid o' strange dogs. an angry dog o' even middling size can mess up your day if it chooses to. 

gd doesn't even see the other part o' the story which undercuts so many o' his previous claims. the cop, who has considerable training with firearms, missed the dog and shot the woman, which should not be any surprise at all.  if you have one person armed in any tense situation, the chances o' somebody dying accidental or purpose is high. increase the number o' armed personas and danger increases or decreases? 

the multi-state portion o' the bar exam (the multiple choice portion) ordinarily included at least one question which were meant to trick you into sympathizing with an animal. don't fall into the trap. if you got a legal question, do not sympathize with lassie.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Guard Dog]

30 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

am recalling the most obscure advice we got 'fore taking the bar exam so many decades past: "don't sympathize with lassie."

cops is supposed to involve themselves in domestic disputes. duh. imagine if cop walks on by and then next day is discovered the woman killed the guy moments after the cop were outta sight. that would be the mistake.

the dog is distracting gd. that dog doesn't care about gd, so don't let it distract you.

same scenario you describe with the cop legal on premises, but instead o' a big barking dog rushing towards the cop, is a young man with a kitchen knife.  cop pulls his gun and accidentally shots the woman.

does gd react same? gd focuses on dog. is always a mistake to focus on the animal. if you have seen wounds left by k-9 unit dogs, you would be appropriate afraid o' strange dogs. an angry dog o' even middling size can mess up your day if it chooses to. 

gd doesn't even see the other part o' the story which undercuts so many o' his previous claims. the cop, who has considerable training with firearms, missed the dog and shot the woman, which should not be any surprise at all.  if you have one person armed in any tense situation, the chances o' somebody dying accidental or purpose is high. increase the number o' armed personas and danger increases or decreases? 

the multi-state portion o' the bar exam (the multiple choice portion) ordinarily included at least one question which were meant to trick you into sympathizing with an animal. don't fall into the trap. if you got a legal question, do not sympathize with lassie.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Well, in truth I knew about the story because of the dog. But I thought the point was the cop shot an unarmed woman in the chest in her yard in front of her husband and child  and suffered no repercussions for doing it.  Aside from the lawsuit that the city had to pay. 
 

that just seems off to me. Two unarmed people shouting at each other in the yard with no one has actually called in a complaint, if I remember the details correctly, and a passing police officer decides to stop and interject himself into the situation. When there is no illegal act actually occurring where is the probable cause that allows him to walk uninvited onto private property? You’re right that argument could have ended in violence. But just standing in the front having an argument is not in itself illegal. Or am I not looking at that correctly? 
 

actually that got me thinking I remember another case I believe this one was in Oklahoma City or Kansas City don’t remember which. The police showed up at a home on an actual domestic disturbance that had been called in. Once again the dog was involved which is how I found out about it because I had an interest in that kind of thing back then. In that case the cop pulls his pistol in the living room to shoot the family dog and missed. The children the parents and the other police officer were in the living room with them. The bullet struck The floor ricocheted up and shot the young daughter in the head.

I know for sure the cop was fired the next day. I seem to recall he ended up facing reckless endangerment charges after the fact.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

3 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The bullet struck The floor ricocheted up and shot the young daughter in the head.

 

unlike lassie, the law overwhelming sympathizes with children. if a child is hurt or dies or could be hurt or scared a lot, then a cop may be fubar. one reason why former officer chauvin may get more than recommended 12.5 years is 'cause children were present when he killed mr. floyd. if kids are present, cops got far less leeway to use deadly force.

tell us that ain't fair? is law. fair and law is not the same.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Bartimaeus]

11 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

I am more than willing to except that the majority of them are honest

The problem with that majority is they tend to look the other way when the badge heavy sadists do their thing

These two are not compatible with each other, and is probably the biggest component of why nothing changes with our policing institution - if the good ones (and DAs and judges) held the bad ones accountable, the institution would have already necessarily reformed simply as a result of that. Alas, we are where we are today for a reason.

[ComradeYellow]

17 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

These two are not compatible with each other, and is probably the biggest component of why nothing changes with our policing institution - if the good ones (and DAs and judges) held the bad ones accountable, the institution would have already necessarily reformed simply as a result of that. Alas, we are where we are today for a reason.

Cops have had this heroes vs. villains mentality for a very long time, so even bad cops are just heroes with issues and still far better than the villains according to the "good" cops.

I still think one of the major problems is simply that there's way too many police agencies.  If every state had one agency that was well organized and in touch with the public it could go a long way towards accountability.

18,000 police agencies makes them little better than the street gang "villains" they hate so much.

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

These two are not compatible with each other, and is probably the biggest component of why nothing changes with our policing institution - if the good ones (and DAs and judges) held the bad ones accountable, the institution would have already necessarily reformed simply as a result of that. Alas, we are where we are today for a reason.

hmmm. most o' us have worked in a profession or occupation where discrimination 'gainst minorities and/or women happens and where such discrimination has been a problem for a considerable period o' time. am not gonna suggest they is all bad. is the nonsense gd does with politicians. they are all complicit, yes? the growing tendency to call every white male a racist and a bigot is one o' the reasons we ended up with trump as President. even if you believe every white male is a racist and every male a bigot, such accusations is not helpful.

dismiss every cop similar? same mistake. am hardly suggesting there is no responsibility for the other cops who witness or know and do nothing. contrary. however, am thinking is not appropriate to make it a stark +/- thing. 

brings up why am actual more interested in what happens to the other cops present when floyd died. their trial will take place in the near future and will be more meaningful in our mind than were chauvin. asian cop. mixed-race cop. white cop. none helped floyd and only the white guy protested 'bout what were happening to floyd. am thinking all the cops bear some responsibility for what happened to floyd, but am not thinking is +/-, and am not willing to go so far as to suggest every cop everywhere is responsible in a +/- kinda way.

HA! Good Fun!

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, let me be clear: I do believe it's absolutely an institutional issue. I'm not trying to say there are no good cops - not at all, we're talking about humans after all, so there's bound to be a wide range of types even if the particular profession in question does unfortunately necessarily attract more of the power-tripping authoritarian types. However, if the institution itself makes it so that every member at every level of the institution is conditioned to never hold each other accountable for genuine wrongdoing (whether through its own internal culture and systems or through the rest of the related legal system that is supposed to have at least some ability to oversee it), then the institution as a whole is broken, and it starts making sense why an increasingly large number of people start to see what should otherwise be good cops as being exactly the same as bad cops when all members of the institution are equally working to enable the bad to continue to occur...and yeah, that's exactly what's happened. And I...and I think pretty much everyone else, have literally no good, realistic ideas on how to really fix that: it's a broken institution. How much easier it would be to change or replace a few individuals - and so I guess the system persists with neither good ideas nor political will to implement them.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm recalling the story of Adrian Schoolcraft, an officer with the NYPD. He was a whistle-blower who made some tapes (called the NYPD tapes) uncovering corruption in a precinct. The response to either this or previous internal complaints was harassment that culminated in a(n illegal) SWAT raid and week-long imprisonment of Schoolcraft in a psychiatric facility. The NYPD issued a challenge coin featuring a cassette labeled "NYPD Tapes" on the front while the back features an image of a rat in a straight jacket with the quote of the order to send Schoolcraft to the hospital.

Maybe not all the officers at the 81st precinct are bad people, but the system that produces something like that is ****ed.

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, that really just goes hand in hand with it being an institutional brokenness. If literally just about an entire precinct is composed of provably terrible cops, and there are precincts all around the country just like it, then the question must be asked - how is this institution selecting or creating ONLY bad cops? That's not normal, that's not just random chance - in other institutions that are not similarly broken, you would at the very least get a roughly equal number of good and bad members. If it's not, well, your institution is broken - and it is. It really literally is, in multiple ways.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[Malcador]

Well corrupt people make more corrupt people.  Only solution in a case like that is to dispose of everyone and try to start anew.  Also helps as you make an example.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Malcador

[Gromnir]

the unforgivable flaw o' cops is that they are human beings, which means they is busted and broken and corruptible same as is football coaches, church ministers, movie directors and doctors. 

Gromnir's planet is rough and is obvious not same as the planet many o' you hale from. here we got this phrase, which is stoopid and terrible, but it persists 'cause is also real: snitches get stitches. military whistleblowers get stitches if they don't follow the chain o' command with their complaints, and if the do follow chain of command, then is a good chance they get punished anyways.

sports teams is all too frequent falling victim to the culture o' exploitation and punishment o' anybody who would criticize. us gymnastics, penn state football, ohio state wrestling (we haven't forgotten about you mr. jim jordan) and more than a few pro teams has all been in the news 'cause the bad culture where folks doing the right thing were treated monstrous. how many has done same and never been subject o' a news story?

church ministers and boy scouts. doubt we need actual supply details to an earthling to make instant apparent how church and boy scouts is relevant to this topic. some o' the stories o' good christian men and women and the cruelty they used to silence those who dared to suggest church and boy scout leadership were guilty o' horrific wrongs is making us ashamed to be an earthling. 

on the waterfront is a movie from 1954, back when a guy named brando were arguable the best earth actor. fantastic film. union dirty is a bit different today, but you gotta be pretty freaking courageous to rock the boat (another earth idiom, apologies) in a union shop.

not long ago, on earth, we had this awakening, which weren't. #metoo. people pretended to be shocked and dismayed to discover that actresses were exploited by movie producers, and if the actresses complained, they were blacklisted and victim blamed and worse... and then women (and even a few men) from a wide range o' professions and jobs revealed how they too had also suffered and been silenced by threats overt and subtle. on earth some o' us pretended to be surprised by the revelations o' the #metoo movement, while others just dismissed the whole thing. as we said, we come from a rough planet.

and yeah, firemen, cops, military and sports teams got these esprit de corps cultures wherein bad behavior, if not addressed and active stamped out by those in charge, can become pervasive and generational. there will be busted teams and departments which keep breeding more bad and the fact nobody has the courage to stop is revolting... and very human.

our planet is rough. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps (edit) 'cause become is one word.

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Gromnir