MigL

I would have said … https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Are you saying what D Chauvin did, wasn't criminal ??? Tell that to the cops in Atlanta at the Wendy's drive-through. They were firedupon by their own taser, shot the suspect, and are now being charged. Stop bailing straw, and rebut the argument being made. Well, it certainly cleared that factor, in my mind. Sure. Or if the union is too strong and protects the bad cops. Or, even if there is no psychological assessment after the violent behaviour. See, I can do that too. Rebut ( or even dismiss ) individual sentences, instead of the whole opinion. We seem to agree, though, that the system, especially in the US, is failing, and people are suffering for it.

No one who is that arrogant and so sure of himself, that he would kneel on a person's neck for 4 minutes AFTER that person had died, would be able to pass a psychological screening, and subsequent re-assessments after his numerous 'excessive force' incidents. How long was this guy's assessment before he became a police officer ? How long was his training before they handed him a gun, and a position of authority ? Why did the police union allow this guy to keep his job after so many incidents ? And no, I'm not trying to 'spread' the blame, D Chauvin is responsible for his own actions. ( You should know that I'm a believer in personal responsibility, by now ) But the system is failing all of us, not just Black Americans; they are, however, the ones who suffer most from it.

Sure. Let's apply that to all criminal activity. You steal a loaf of bread because you're hungry, zero tolerance, you go to jail. You've been oppressed for a couple of hundred years and you cause some damage while protesting, zero tolerance, you go to jail. Someone is trying to kill you and instead of just disabling them, you use excessive force and kill them, zero tolerance, you go too jail. Or is zero tolerance only applicable to the 'causes' you deem important ? If you mean he didn't use a gun, but his knee instead, I would think that if a jackass who displays such disregard for human life, had been 'screened out' and never become a police officer, G Floyd might still be alive. Or even if D Chauvin had been re-evaluated after any of his many previous excessive force complaints.

I thought you were gonna say all those who don't want one, get shot. Watched an old movie, that I hadn't watched for quite some time, again last night. In the Heat of the Night with Sydney Poitier and Rod Steiger; Great movie, and appropriate to this discussion. Makes you realize how far we've come, and how far we still need to go

I don't know what the procedure is in the US, but in Canada, a cop is given a thorough background check ( including family members ) and a psychological screening, in an attempt to weed out the nutcases before handing them a gun. Then again, it seems you guys will give a gun to anyone who wants one ( as per your Constitution )

You mean a system that doesn't screen police officers for white supremacist or racist beliefs before handing them a gun ?

Yes, I may have suspected he was a white supremacist. Whose doubts are you questioning ? Of course motivation matters. How do you stop a problem from reoccurring unless you understand its origins.

It was a statement, not a rebuttal to any allegations. Make a difference to what ?

Did not know this... https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/backlash-against-asian-american-woman-married-to-ex-cop-in-george-floyd-case-reveals-disturbing-truth/ar-BB15PqZJ?ocid=msedgntp Turns out D Chauvin's ( G Floyd's killer ) was an Oriental refugee, previously in an abusive arranged marriage. That could still mean D Chauvin is racist with regard to Black Americans, or possibly just an idiot, but would cast doubts on his being a 'white supremacist'.

Apparently D Trump's planned events in Tulsa fizzled. I'm sure he'll still brag about the 'large' attendance.

I was going to say that a discussion ( which America needs to have ) has to have dissenting views, or there is nothing to discuss. Then essereio made that comment about A Hitler... Chances are, if they erect a statue of G Floyd, it will be torn down in the future, because he was a flawed human being. But that cannot, in any way, excuse the way he was treated and killed by representatives of a state-sanctioned organization. THAT, is what is being discussed.

Both option 3 and 4 necessarily include that they consider themselves above the law and there would be no reprisals for their actions ( regardless of motive ). IOW they were too stupid to know right from wrong ( and should have never been cops in the first place ), or, they did know, but just did not care ( and assumed no-one else would care either, about some unemployed black guy, or Indian from a reservation, or foreigner who can't speak English, or someone who 'looks' like a terrorist, or many other who are disproportionally harassed/injured/killed by police.

Two possibilities... Either all four really are that stupid that the didn't realise they were ( actually,already had ) killing a man. Or they considered themselves so above the law, that they felt they could kill a man in broad daylight, and in front of numerous witnesses.

One could make the argument that protest and social unrest, such as the 1848, European protests/uprisings, or the French Revolution which consumed its offspring, did little to bring about social change. It was subsequent wars ( Italian unification and German unification ) that allowed for self-governance after the failure of the French revolution, Napoleonic empire and the re-distribution of power at the 1815 Vienna Congress. Similarly it was war that brought about the end of slavery ( such as it was ) in the American south. Then again, I suppose you could call civil war, extreme social unrest.

I don't know. They've gotten really good at covering their asses. By the way, this past weekend in Chicago, 85 shot, 24 dead, mostly young black males, but a few middle aged and a few women. Meanwhile the police were keeping an eye on the protesters, or even marching along. Just an example of what happens when no-one is 'minding the store', or the police is defunded. I have to wonder if a simpler answer, like getting rid of police unions, which protect the repeat offenders like D Chauvin, might be enough to rid police forces of the 'bad' cops. Might make the rest not feel obliged to protect the bad ones, and 'police' themselves.

And while we are picking on police forces ( well, D Chauvin, the murderer, was a policeman ), why are politicians, legislators and DAs getting a free pass ? They set up the system and laws, that allow for the treatment and prosecution of people, based on their skin color. Seems very hypocritical that they now jump on the other bandwagon, and blame police forces for enforcing systems/rules they themselves created. Typical political maneuver, blame someone else, and cover your ass so you can get re-elected.

You could, but SWAT units use military gear. I thought you were opposed to that ? But what about a simple domestic disturbance, where the husband is drunk and beating on his wife ? Have you ever tried to talk to a violent drunk ? The only thing you can do is forcefully remove them, until they've slept it off. This is just a proposal so far, and hasn't been voted on yet. If it does go through, I can see all the affluent whites moving to privately protected neighborhoods, while blacks are left in the disadvantaged, unprotected areas, and the situation will get even worse, not better. And if enough cities decide to follow suit, I can see fear, and need for protection, driving white voters to choose voting for D Trump again this November, as the self-billed 'law and order' candidate, and the world is stuck with D Trump another 4 years. ( hope he's too stupid to take advantage of the situation, in that case )

Its happening, INow. "The Minneapolis City Council on Sunday announced plans to disband its police department and invest in community-based public safety programs following calls from activists to ‘defund the police,’ in the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer." https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/07/minneapolis-votes-to-disband-police-department/#2be203145274 I sincerely hope they've thought this through. I would hate to see a mental health provider, or social worker, show up at an event like the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout ( because a 'mob' of people always make thoughtful decisions )

To be honest, I don't think protests are going to solve it either. Just today I read how Snoop Dogg is planning to vote, for the first time ever, this coming November, because he's upset with the way the President is handling the protests. NOW, he's finally upset enough ? Where has he been till now ? A little too little, too late. We are already out of the frying pan and into the fire, with this Government. The best, easiest, way to change things is to get out and vote. If people didn't shirk their responsibilities the US ( actually, the world ) wouldn't be in such a mess. It would be interesting to ask protesters if they plan on voting this November ( and if they actually do )

Good position DrmDoc. I am aware of the redistribution schemes for police funding to social services and support workers that are more qualified to de-escalate and educate. I come from a town ( Canadian ) of 130 000 people but we are 30 min away from Hamilton, and 1 hour from Toronto. Four border crossing bridges to Lewiston, Niagara Falls NY, and Buffalo are within 20 min drive. From the few cops I know I've gleaned that most of their calls are domestic disturbances, followed at some distance, by drunk and disorderly ( we are a university and college town ). I would hate to think that the next time a husband ( enraged or intoxicated ) is beating on his wife or kids, there are no police on call, to separate him from his vulnerable family. Education, and even de-escalation, takes time, and sometimes the situation needs to be remedied immediately, sometimes even using force ( or even killing to save an innocent's life ). If anything, I would like to see INCREASED police funding and presence, but in a way that they are among the people, and interacting, with the people they are sworn to serve and protect. Police ARE ( or are supposed to be ) a social service already. It is partly a vicious circle. People ( especially minorities ) distrust police, so they tend to be un-cooperative, so police think they are automatically guilty of something, and rough them up ( or much worse ), and so people become even more distrusting of police. This is in regards to police forces in general. There is no excuse for the criminal treatment G Floyd was given by D Chauvin, a 19 year veteran who should have known better, but seemed indifferent to human life or death. INow just posted... And I know I said I wasn't going to discuss it any more, but … If there are more guns in the streets that are in possession by the military ( see Curious Layman's link ) you may feel the need to be armed to the teeth, when you go out on patrol. As for G Floyd ( before I'm reprimanded by Mods ), he was killed with a knee, not combat or heavy military equipment.

Very well. We are not going to discuss the methods police use because of other factors, or policing in general, as related to the unfortunate G Floyd incident. The change that is favored by the currently peaceful protesters is "Defund the Police" ( I wish America well, with that simplistic plan )

That differs by state. What may be true in New York state, or California is not true in Texas or Florida even. ( outside metropolitan areas, most every adult Texan male carries ) All I'm saying is that if you're going to investigate new methods of policing, so that incidents like G Floyd's murder are minimized, you can't be simplistic about it. Saying things like … Take away guns from police. Talk to the suspect for a specified length of time before escalating. Don't escalate at all. Let them go. Etc. It takes some consideration of what policing entails, and you can't put one group of people at risk to protect another group. incidentally some of the statistics from your link are scary, Curious Layman... "American civilians own nearly 100 times as many firearms as the U.S. military and nearly 400 times as many as law enforcement."[7] Americans bought more than 2 million guns in May 2018, alone.[7] That is more than twice as many guns, as possessed by every law enforcement agency in the United States put together.[7] In April and May 2018, U.S. civilians bought 4.7 million guns, which is more than all the firearms stockpiled by the United States military.[7] In 2017, Americans bought 25.2 million guns, which is 2.5 million more guns than possessed by every law enforcement agency in the world put together.[7] Between 2012 and 2017, U.S. civilians bought 135 million guns, 2 million more guns than the combined stockpile of all the world's armed forces" IOW, thngs are getting much worse with the gun situation, not better.

Yes, of course I am, and I am not moving goalposts. If you go back and read carefully, you'll note that this particular branch of the discussion ( as opposed to the Moreno branch, "Racism exists", "No it doesn't", "Yes it does", etc. ) focussed on how police should approach a situation ( starts 4 hours ago; wish we still had numbered posts ). No one is contesting that what followed the initial approach, and G Floyd's death, was a crime, and should be punished. My contention is that the choice of initial approach in the US is constrained by the large numbers of unregistered guns on the streets. Whereas in Canada, our police have many more choices ( de-escalation comes to mind ) because they don't need to worry as much about the risk of a gun, and getting shot ( have three friends who are cops; one of them probably hasn't drawn his gun in years ). I could say " maybe you think it's good that there are 120 guns per 100 people in the US" But then you'd really be accusing me of fallacious arguments.

Well its great that you can watch a video of a man being murdered and say, from the comfort of your computer chair " He was unarmed, and so no threat". But if you were tasked with approaching/arresting a large guy, with the high likelihood that he is carrying a weapon ( 120 guns per 100 persons remember ? ), I think you would immobilize him first, and ask questions when you are sure you won't be shot at. I'm not saying what the cops did after he was immobilized was right; it was murder. But the gun culture in the US gives very little option as to how you initially approach the situation. As far as I know the incidence of Americans carrying knives is no higher than anywhere else, Zap. Sometimes if you don't assume they ARE carrying a gun, you get shot.