johnwoo

Whether or not one is a christian or not, I tried to point out the irony of Trumps faux Christianity and George Floyd's actions as christian in contrast, and yet the evangelical right continued support for Trump.
Would Jesus have approved of Trump?

dave_j

When you stop to consider the mayhem that religion in all it's various manifestations has caused throughout the ages, you have to ask yourself whether a benevolent deity would approve of and permit hero worship of the religious kind.
You then have to consider, given the evidence of how followers of these religions have behaved in the past and continue to behave in the present, whether such a deity would be benevolent or malicious.
If Jesus is truly the son of this deity, as many claim, then I'd suspect that he's been placed on earth to do the deity's bidding.
On the basis of past religious behaviour, I'd say that Jesus might well approve of Trump and his evangelical fanatics.

spouse of scouse

I hope Ryan's a better lawyer than mathematician

Jsmth321

The way many city police departments are handling the protests and riots seems to be making things worse, are US police taught deescalation at all?

jimenato

Watchpost

I'll pick up on this and try not to let this become a rant, because this whole business makes me very, very angry.

I'm actually with you on quite a lot of what you say, Cape. I'm with Hiro too, on some things, particularly his criticism of the militarization and lack of accountability of the US police, which in my view are the primary reasons for George Floyd's death rather than racism, which is not to say that racism wasn't a factor.

Looking at the dry statistics, one could say that incidents like this aren't actually all that common, given the size of the US. That black-on-white murders are more numerous, and black-on-black murders even more so. And so on. Lies, damned lies and statistics, as you pretty much say yourself.

The fact that every couple of months there's a George Floyd, or Martin Trayvon, or Tamir Rice, and the fact that the media runs with these stories - they are, after all, of great interest to the public - turns them into a constant issue, and invites whataboutery. What about all the terrible things done by black thugs that don't receive remotely as much media attention?

But consider this. It's not just that you don't read, every couple of months, of a black cop kneeling on a white man's head for eight minutes and literally squeezing the life out of him whilst bystanders film him doing so. Of two black cops screeching up in a cruiser in a serene white neighbourhood and immediately shooting a white, twelve-year-old "young man" (sic) playing with a toy gun. Of a black cop mistaking another apartment for her own and immediately shooting the "intruder". Of two black rednecks grabbing their guns and charging out of their house in such a hurry that they don't even have time to don their black cloaks and pointy hoods, piling into their pickup and chasing down a white jogger and shooting him. No. It's that even if you did, what you really don't hear - and this is the point - you never hear of black people doing this to white people and two hours later walking the streets as free people. Of not being held to account. Of them saying "self-defense, officer", or "he was resisting arrest, chief" - "oh, OK, on your way then".

Sure, Derek Chauvin is now being held to account. I think it was Lion in Winter (correct me if I'm wrong) who said that she was glad that that was happening at all. But it did initially appear that Chauvin only needed to say "resisting arrest", and that was it. Ahmaud Arbery's killers are also having to answer for their actions, but only because a video surfaced; without that, his death would have been little more than a brief mention in the local paper, and no action taken.

The message is, or at least has been, for decades, indeed centuries, that in America, human life is very, very cheap, provided the killer is privileged. Which usually means, even if it isn't limited to, being white.

This thinking, this sense of entitlement to kill people without being held to account, goes right to the top. Right up to the current incumbent of the White House. "When the looting starts, the shooting starts." Phew, where do I start... one, how is "shooting people" the appropriate default response to someone stealing a TV set? Two, Trump didn't coin the phrase. That was Walter E. Headley, the Miami police chief, in response to a crime outbreak - in 1967! What were you saying, Cape, about this not being the 1960s? And three, isn't it just as legitimate to say "When the shooting starts, the looting starts"? The shooting of black people? And did it ever stop? As for the rule of law, the family of Harry Dunn are still waiting. Trump has made it explicitly clear that when the wife of an American spook mows down a British motorcyclist, he has absolutely zero respect for the rule of law in Britain. It's inconceivable that she should be held to account for her mistake. But someone stealing a TV set? Shoot him!

I've said it often enough, you all know what I think of the rule of law. What I think of Chauvin is unprintable, but it's absolutely, crucially important that he receive a fair trial. At the very most, if he is jailed, he'll probably be out again in a couple of years. Tragic, but it's the best we can hope for. As a privileged white armchair social justice warrior living in a safe country, that's my take. It's not about race and we shouldn't make it so. A human being killed another human being and he should answer for it, and that process, and our response, should not only be appropriate: it should be the same whatever the skin colour of those involved.

But if I were black and living in Minnesota right now, I'd probably be rioting. I'd probably be thinking: since when did the rule of law ever apply to people like me?

spouse of scouse

Thank you for an excellent and thought provoking post Watchpost

Former Lancastrian

Actually his maths are correct. Bail has been set at $1 million for the ex officer. Is the $1 million amount unconditional? If it is unconditional then he could pay the $1 million for release. We don't know if there was a conditional amount set and that is where the maths come in.
Conditional bail conditions usually involve the use of a bail bonds person where a 10% amount of the bail is paid. In his example he got the $1 million unconditional amount reduced to $100,000 conditional. Using the 10% meant paying the bonds person 10% of $100,000 which is $10,000 so saved her $90,000.

Watchpost

I was just getting ready to start writing (the song) down on my napkin or my cuff, you know like something you see in the old movies, when her husband came in. He was a state trooper. 'bout six-foot-seven, and this guy took off his flat-brimmed hat and he had one of those drill-instructor hairdos. Looked like a felt-tip pen. He had that look in his eye, if you looked deep enough you could see the back of his head. You know... I started thinking about that, plus you know his IQ being somewhere between a beet and a cabbage.

(Audience laughs.)

Didn't want to get into any trouble with him. This is one of those guys that's "Well I stopped him for speeding and I fired three warning shots into his head."

(Audience laughs.)

And...

(Audience starts clapping)

It happens though, you know?!

Jim Croce, Roller Derby Queen monologue, from his final tour. 1973.

spouse of scouse

Thank you for that very comprehensive response to my little post

Former Lancastrian

Now for the big question to invoke sensible discussion. As all 4 officers now charged how will they plead? If they all plead guilty then job done move onto sentencing but what if they all plead not guilty?

I suspect a number of lawyers are praying that none of the 4 will ask them to represent them for a not guilty plea. What happens if they cannot find a lawyer to represent them? Does the court have to appoint a public defender? Of course they could represent themselves. Any lawyers want to add their 2 cents worth?

DaveLovesDee

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that the 3 police officers who did nothing to prevent the death will make plea deals to say they didn't interfere as they were fearful of the other officer had they done so.

Nutek

My prediction...

Three will plea and walk away.
One will go to prison.
Trump will let him out.

Former Lancastrian

That is one scenario but imagine the outrage if ANY PLEA DEAL is offered? Floyds legal team still want 1st degree murder charges. Do you think they will agree to a plea deal? I certainly don't but they may have to to guarantee a conviction for anything. Too many what ifs ands or buts to consider at the moment.

DaveLovesDee

Yeah, I forgot about the last bit... Trump has previous form for doing that.

The family and public would definitely be outraged, and rightly so. And the former officers would have to move because plenty of people would rightly see them as getting of lightly, while others will feel the former officers ratted on their fellow officer.

I'm guessing they'll be tried separately but as linked trials.