Is this just the beginning of rioting or will it subside?

[CampingJosh]

That IS a real issue. That's not why people are looting and burning businesses in cities indiscriminately though. It was a catalyst. And so is the constant egging on by the media. I've seen some examples where there are signs in the windows saying, "black owned business". Well, if it's about police brutality why is there even a need to distinguish? It's not any of the businesses doing this. But anyway, sometimes those signs are effective, and sometimes they just loot and burn the place anyway. Makes me suspect it's about WAY more than just getting justice for Floyd or generally about ending injustice at the hands of some police.

But as far as real solutions, as you've seen me say, reducing encounters reduces bad encounters. Using minor traffic violations to fish for bigger crimes is nonsense and only increases the chances that the stop will go bad. The less people encounter the police the less likely they are to end up like Floyd.

Here is the rationale I've heard:

In some neighborhoods, the residents feel as though the police care more about the private property in the area (stores, windows, etc.) than they care about the residents who live in the neighborhood. So the residents choose to destroy the things that the police care about as a way of "getting back at" the police.

In that way it's similar to a wife who catches her husband cheating and responds by keying his car and slashing the tires.

Again, I am not the one positing this, as I am not in a position to know what black people in urban areas are feeling. I'm just sharing most "anger-logical" reason I've heard.

 

[BugI02]

As a teenager, I had a couple minor interactions with the police. I did dumb stuff. Fortunately, they weren’t so egregious that it meant going to jail and getting bogged down in the system. But still. Had I not made none of the choices I did to do the things that drew their attention, even those times would probably not have happened. Some people either don’t learn, can’t learn, or for some reason or another let themselves get caught in a harmful cycle.

If Mr Floyd hadn't spent his money on fentanyl (assuming he wasn't passing counterfeit 20s to his dealer) he would have had real money for the cigarettes that cost him his life

“When God hath ordained a creature to die in a particular place, He causeth that creature’s wants to direct him to that place.”

 

[BugI02]

Two separate issues, but only one of them can be controlled by government. That's why it is the issue getting political attention.

Isn't it already controlled by government? Isn't it already illegal for police to kill a man through reckless action? Weren't the involved police almost immediately fired and charged? Not sure how rioting, looting and burning - which also should be controlled by the government- is going to make what Chauvin did illegaler

 

[CampingJosh]

Agreed. But also there's an economy of scale to that. One cop killing one person during a stop. That's very bad. That's intolerable. That's an incident.

52% of all homicide victims are black. That's astonishing since the 12% of the population is black. 96% of the people killing them are black. That's very bad. That's intolerable. That's data.

That is bad data. It's inaccurate, and here's how we know: homicide clearance rate in the U.S. is in the low 60s percent. That means in nearly 4 in 10 homicides, the perpetrator is never even identified. (Source) Even that is only for the cases where police are able to determine that a homicide occurred; it doesn't count all the times when a person "disappeared."

We don't know who is doing a whole bunch of the killing in the U.S. We certainly don't have the information to confidently say 96%.

And if black people are receiving extra police attention, as they claim and data seems to indicate, we should expect the clearance rate in instances with black perpetrators to be higher than among the population as a whole. That casts another bit of doubt on the data.

That is all without bringing in the issues that go along with poverty, which I am not qualified to address but are likely quite relevant.

 

[CampingJosh]

Isn't it already controlled by government? Isn't it already illegal for police to kill a man through reckless action? Weren't the involved police almost immediately fired and charged? Not sure how rioting, looting and burning - which also should be controlled by the government- is going to make what Chauvin did illegaler

It doesn't need to be "illegaler"; it needs to be prevented. Government murdering citizens without due process of law should be an outrage to us all.

I addressed the riots in a previous post, and I don't defend them. But I also won't let rioting by some silence the message of all.

 

[CampingJosh]

If Mr Floyd hadn't spent his money on fentanyl (assuming he wasn't passing counterfeit 20s to his dealer) he would have had real money for the cigarettes that cost him his life

The cigarettes didn't cost him his life. The counterfeit cash didn't cost him his life. Derek Chauvin, with the authority of the government of the city of Minneapolis, cost him his life.

Due process matters.

 

[JettaKnight]

It doesn't need to be "illegaler"; it needs to be prevented. Government murdering citizens without due process of law should be an outrage to us all.

I addressed the riots in a previous post, and I don't defend them. But I also won't let rioting by some silence the message of all.

No one in the Branch Dravidians stopped David Koresh, so the all deserved to die at the hands of over-zealous LEO.


Don't want your wife and baby to die? Don't saw off shotguns.

 

[BugI02]

The cigarettes didn't cost him his life. The counterfeit cash didn't cost him his life. Derek Chauvin, with the authority of the government of the city of Minneapolis, cost him his life.

Due process matters.

Well, you certainly love that 'with the authority of the government' canard, with the authority of what government? The multi-decade Democratic machine? Why aren't they burning the governor's mansion and the state house or assembly building?

Who should have intervened if Chauvin was abusing that authority? White people in general? City government? Amy Klobuchar?

Would love to know where you stood on the matter of LaVoy Finicum being killed by men 'with the authority of the government'

 

[Twangbanger]

NOBODY is saying that Floyd's killing was justified! It was wrong, point blank, full stop. Stop it with the non-sequitur already, please. It's the portrayal of his death as being the biggest problem that this country and the black community in general faces is ridiculous on its face. When the number of black men killed unjustly by police in a country of 300+ million people in a YEAR is less than the number of black men killed by other black men in ONE CITY in a WEEKEND, there is an enormous disparity in the importance placed on the former.

The reason black-on-black murder isn't a "thing" with the "movement," is most of those black men are living and dying in a manner they freely choose. They are living life according to their chosen value system, and accepting the consequences. The "black community" can apparently accept that stupid games net stupid prizes, as long as both parties to the beatdown are on equal social footing and are perceived to be playing by the same rules, participating voluntarily, and freely accepting the consequences. They have a problem with it when a white officer, perceived to be of a different social caste and with the imprimatur of government on his uniform, comes in to impose an externally-defined value set on the behavior of those men, and thrashes the **** out of them when they resist.

It's a Palestinian/Israeli situation. "One side" does not accept the legitimacy of the "other side's" authority over them.

And I'm heading in the direction of believing some sort of "Two-State Solution" may have to be found for this. Because that's what people are advocating under a different name, when they talk about abolishing police departments. We may be heading toward societal acceptance of the idea that there will simply be certain places that have to be policed more loosely than others.

And I think maybe I sorta understand the concept. An IMPD officer told me several years ago that there were two events in Indianapolis at the time where they were instructed not to arrest anyone unless there were acts of violence being committed: the Circle City Classic, and Black Expo. No public intox, kid gloves on the traffic violations, you get the idea. Don't want the city to be the center of controversy. That is hearsay, so take it for what it's worth. But we all know law enforcement has the ability to be selective about certain things.

I'm white. If there is a white person committing crimes in my neighborhood...I want the Police to thrash the **** out of him. Serves him right. When white people look at a white person getting his ass beat by Police, we ask..."I wonder what he did?" Now, I don't want them to sit there with their knee on his neck for 9 minutes after the cuffs are on. But I guess my "lived experience" is different, because when I see some white dumbass getting thrashed for playing stupid games, I'm generally ok with it...as long as he doesn't have the unmitigated gall to die afterward. White people in general are like that. Tell me with a straight face police brutality is not happening in white communities. I don't condone it anywhere, but I'm not burning down my Starbucks.

But Black Americans are different. When they see a local getting his face crammed in the pavement, they have a different reaction, for various reasons. I think it is a mistake to believe these protests are _just_ about George Floyd. It's more than that. When they talk about Abolishing the Police, it's more than the knee in the neck. I believe they want an alternative system of law enforcement to what the rest of America accepts. They just haven't done a very clear job of articulating exactly what it is, yet. We will have to just wait and see. Is it modification of Qualified Immunity? Do they want a completely separate-but-equal system of law enforcement? Will they be placated by just giving groups like Five Points Coalition a lump of "walking around money" from public coffers? I don't know.

The ball is in the protesters' court. They need to tell us precisely what changes they want, and not just in terms of "We don't want George Floyds killed." That's an outcome. They need to tell us the process changes that are required, to bring about that outcome. If this is truly systemic, and not just one "bad apple cop," then the solution also has to be systemic. I'm actually very open to their ideas, as long as it doesn't mess up my neighborhood. I would like there to be One America. But it seems that is down the crapper. So I'm waiting for some constructive ideas. After all the burning, looting, and destruction ends.

I think they want to be policed differently than the rest of the country. They do _not_ want to be policed the same. Prove me wrong. I'm listening now.

 

[CampingJosh]

Well, you certainly love that 'with the authority of the government' canard, with the authority of what government?

It's the big difference. If you can't inherently see that, I don't know how to explain it.

He was empowered by:

• The city of Minneapolis, his employer
• The state of Minnesota, which grants officers the authority to make arrests outside their jurisdiction
• The United States, which grants qualified immunity to officers

Do you really think that police conduct their jobs without the authority of the government?

Who should have intervened if Chauvin was abusing that authority? White people in general? City government? Amy Klobuchar?

The other officers should have intervened. After all, they were witnessing an action that a prosecutor charged as murder.

And I can't let this slide: "If" Chauvin was abusing his authority? Is that really a question in your mind?

Would love to know where you stood on the matter of LaVoy Finicum being killed by men 'with the authority of the government'

There are so many differences as to make the comparison meaningless. Floyd was unarmed and already restrained by handcuffs. Finicum reportedly went for a gun. Floyd spent a counterfeit $20 bill. Finicum committed multiple felonies while armed. Floyd told officers, "I can't breathe." Finicum told officers, "You're going to have to shoot me."

Finicum was killed in self-defense. Floyd was killed while already restrained. I don't like that either happened; I can understand why one of the two did.

 

[Tombs]

The ball is in the protesters' court. They need to tell us precisely what changes they want, and not just in terms of "We don't want George Floyds killed." That's an outcome. They need to tell us the process changes that are required, to bring about that outcome. If this is truly systemic, and not just one "bad apple cop," then the solution also has to be systemic. I'm actually very open to their ideas, as long as it doesn't mess up my neighborhood. I would like there to be One America. But it seems that is down the crapper. So I'm waiting for some constructive ideas. After all the burning, looting, and destruction ends.

I think they want to be policed differently than the rest of the country. They do _not_ want to be policed the same. Prove me wrong. I'm listening now.

They want further coddling and no consequences for unlawful actions.

Just read their list of demands.

 

[MinutemanPatriot]

In response to the OP, I believe that the Demorats will do their level best to incite a full-out race war by turbocharging the hate, anger and racism of as many blacks as possible. Having done that, they would go to the UN, demand that the UN declare Trump an illegitimate leader, send in UN troops as an occupational force to take over US law enforcement, and militarily remove Trump from office, thus allowing the Demorats to abolish the Constitution & Bill of Rights (which we all know they hate)... institute a socialist goverment and transform the USA into Venezuela del Norte.

 

[mmpsteve]

...

We don't know who is doing a whole bunch of the killing in the U.S. We certainly don't have the information to confidently say 96%.

So we don't know the color of the murderers in Chicago, due to lack of data?
Yea ... OK. Maybe a bunch of Charles Bronsons have invaded Chiraqi.

.

 

[two70]

Which should get more attention: one high school student beating up another, or one high school teacher beating up a student?

With the pay and authority comes extra responsibility and a higher level of scrutiny.

It depends. If your concern is the health and well being of students, then both hypothetical situations should be equally attention worthy. If you are more concerned with pushing an agenda against teachers or with teachers enforcing rules then clearly you focus attention exclusively on the second hypothetical. When people claim they're concerned with health and well being but focus exclusively on an anti-authority agenda, one which ultimately puts more of those they claim to care about at risk, it is entirely reasonable to question those claims.

 

[Tactically Fat]

I am bothered that the 2A applies to these Antifa and BLM *******s.

Snipping this out.

This is an immensely steep and incredibly slippery slope. Think 87.5 degree slope that's been covered in Teflon and then basted in 0W-16.

Many of us here on INGO practically froth at the mouth when "leftists" want to restrict our 2A rights... Yet that's the same behavior that you're talking about here. "Rights for me, but not for thee".

First Amendment for everyone.
Second Amendment for everyone.

 

[jamil]

Here is the rationale I've heard:

In some neighborhoods, the residents feel as though the police care more about the private property in the area (stores, windows, etc.) than they care about the residents who live in the neighborhood. So the residents choose to destroy the things that the police care about as a way of "getting back at" the police.

In that way it's similar to a wife who catches her husband cheating and responds by keying his car and slashing the tires.

Again, I am not the one positing this, as I am not in a position to know what black people in urban areas are feeling. I'm just sharing most "anger-logical" reason I've heard.

As with most angry reactions it's very narrow minded. I can't count how many videos I've seen of black business owners and residents dependent on those businesses pleading with people to stop destroying their black lives. But CNN still tells the story of how the anger justifies the actions. That's another bad artifact of telling the people who could provide a needed critical view of that narrative to sit down and shut up.

I understand that you don't appear to condone rationale for the violence, but are just repeating how people have explained it to you. It's worth breaking it down though. I think there are better theories available to explain the police than that they care more about property than people. The police were created to enforce laws. Their duty is to protect the people and property FROM PEOPLE! So it may appear to them that the cops care less about the people they're arresting than the property they're protecting. But their perspective is limited to their own lived experience and they're ignoring the lived experience of the people who own the property. And by destroying property, they're ignoring the lives they're harming by doing so. The irony of chanting "Black Lives Matter" while destroying black lives is lost on them.

But I get it. People are angry and don't think things through. I think society would be better served if we could help them think this through rather than humoring this nonsense.

 

[jamil]

That is bad data. It's inaccurate, and here's how we know: homicide clearance rate in the U.S. is in the low 60s percent. That means in nearly 4 in 10 homicides, the perpetrator is never even identified. (Source) Even that is only for the cases where police are able to determine that a homicide occurred; it doesn't count all the times when a person "disappeared."

We don't know who is doing a whole bunch of the killing in the U.S. We certainly don't have the information to confidently say 96%.

And if black people are receiving extra police attention, as they claim and data seems to indicate, we should expect the clearance rate in instances with black perpetrators to be higher than among the population as a whole. That casts another bit of doubt on the data.

That is all without bringing in the issues that go along with poverty, which I am not qualified to address but are likely quite relevant.

That's important if the people who are "dissappeared" changes the proportionality of who commits the crimes. And it could. But. Of the cases where the killer can be identified, 96% of black people who are killed, are killed by black people. And that trend follows race across the board.

Most white people who are murdered are murdered by white people. Most Hispanics who are murdered are murdered by Hispanics. It's because of proximity. I would guess that in mixed race communities, which are rarer than not, the homicides would tend to even out more. Though there are exceptions, in black communities, you don't find white people going there to murder them. You don't find black people coming to white neighborhoods to murder them, few exceptions notwithstanding. Same for Hispanic communities. So I think it would be fair to suspect that the "disappeared" most likely follow the same pattern of proportionality.

I don't think we know who murdered black people more than we know who murdered white people, which is what you'd be saying if you asserted that the proportionality would even out if we knew who killed the "disappeared". It's not like white people are more clever and therefore their murderous ways are harder to detect. It would be racist to think that.

 

[churchmouse]

The cigarettes didn't cost him his life. The counterfeit cash didn't cost him his life. Derek Chauvin, with the authority of the government of the city of Minneapolis, cost him his life.

Due process matters.

The end results can not be argued. And I agree whole heartedly. Bad Ju-Ju.
But the chain of events leading this turd to his demise can be. Cause and effect is what I believe we are discussing.

Again, due process matters but it was ignored when it came to at least 2 of the arresting LEO for their actions previous to this debacle. That's what we need to look at. What led up to this.

 

[jamil]

It doesn't need to be "illegaler"; it needs to be prevented. Government murdering citizens without due process of law should be an outrage to us all.

I addressed the riots in a previous post, and I don't defend them. But I also won't let rioting by some silence the message of all.

The rioting undermines the message though. The rioting is about deconstructing this society. It has a political goal. It exploits the anger and frustration. It's a bait and switch. Come protest an unjust death. When you get there, loot and destroy for political revolution, but in the name of George Floyd.

I think that the rioting is every bit the outrage as the way the cops handled Floyd. The message won't be the message until the violence stops. No justice no peace is nonsense. No peace is just more injustice against their own. They're hurting everyone including themselves. And their preventing people like me, who supports their grievance against police, but then I have to say I can't support them while they're destroying society.

 

[jamil]

Well, you certainly love that 'with the authority of the government' canard, with the authority of what government? The multi-decade Democratic machine? Why aren't they burning the governor's mansion and the state house or assembly building?

Who should have intervened if Chauvin was abusing that authority? White people in general? City government? Amy Klobuchar?

Would love to know where you stood on the matter of LaVoy Finicum being killed by men 'with the authority of the government'

It doesn't matter who is the government. It matters that some police use bad tactics against citizens, which tends to put certain citizens in more harms way than is deserved. I've said before that bad encounters are proportional to the overall number of encounters. Reducing encounters reduces bad encounters. Society is harmed more overall by policies like stop and frisk. Eliminating that nonsense would reduce the bad encounters. That's not to say that it would have reduced this one. So I think revisiting qualified immunity is necessary. The problem in this latest scenario is that Chauvin was a repeat offender yet still on the force.