US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[August]

Originally Posted by skidman

Ridiculous. A well trained young officer in riot gear against an elderly civilian, who perfidiously fell back and tripped...

Question: If the jury decides there was no "intentional conduct", will that bastard cop at least face a charge for "bodily injury caused by negligence"?

Question for you. If you were in that well trained officers shoes what would you have done? Should they have attempted to put the man in cuffs for not clearing the street, ignored him, gave him a big sloppy kiss, something else?


There are lots of police critics here but I rarely hear what they'd do different so here's your chance. Enlighten us.

[skidman]

Hm. I'm not a police critic, on the contrary: they have often helped / protected me in difficult situations. Furthermore I think police officer is a very challenging profession, so I have deep respect for men and woman that meet the requisites their job as an officer brings about.

To answer your question: I'd consider putting him in cuffs an adequate procedure. And seeing that it was two dozen officers against one "rioter" it should be feasible.

Maybe our "chief of the boat" could add a professional perspective here.

Last remark: You missed my point completely (again. Seems you are forming a habit). It's useless to discuss what should have been done. There is an old man in hospital and a police officer accused of criminal assault. And then there is a president and a attorney who want to make the victim the perpetrator. Disgusting!

[August]

Originally Posted by skidman

To answer your question: I'd consider putting him in cuffs an adequate procedure. And seeing that it was two dozen officers against one "rioter" it should be feasible.

Yeah but feasible for what? I can imagine the optics of two dozen officers in riot gear swarming over the poor elderly gentleman.

[Onkel Neal]

Probably what happened: the police were instructed to move the protesters, this one guy wanted to argue/reason/jaw-jack. The police gave him a shove and he lost his balance and fell. Unfortunate.

[Skybird]

^ My thoughts exactly.

Still, he did not fall by himself, but was pushed. Nobody would argue that if somebody gets shot, the victim was killed by the bullet and the shooter were not responsible fior it: the shooter has all to do with it. The consequence may not have been intended in this case, but that cannot protect the officers from being held accountable, like you may cause a car accident that you did not intended, still you are held responsible. It was reported there was a call by the police to move away. But even if he did not obey, that cannot be a reason to excuse health damage like this: skull fracture, very dangerous, initially in critical condition. It would be absolutely disproportionate to be allowed to injure people like this just because they - without projecting physical violence by themselves -do not immediately obey police orders - if that would be okay, you could as well legalise it to shoot protesters in the leg. This man suffered a skull fracture. HE COULD BE DEAD. The two officers pushing him must be held accountable, there is no way around that. A sober, neutral trial, if that is possible in this climate.

Personally I do not like police having to wear their names on their uniforms so that they can be personally identified and privately taken revenge on, which indeed is a problem in those states (Germany) and nations were it gets done like this: indeed it leads to threats being directed at the families of officers. But they should wear numbers by which they can be anonymously identified if charges gets filed against them by private persons. Examination of such incidents should not be left to an internal department, but must be transparent, the examination must be counter-controlled by an instance that is outside the police: the accused cannot be in control of the examination. It has been said a lot about the powerful police unions (in America) preventing right this neutral examination working if problems arise. That since so long nothing has changed for the better, is hugely to their part, since they block change and protect their members. Well, thats why I have read, and what they said in a docu in TV this evening.

There was a TV report on the US police on German TV tonight. In it they said the averag training time in US states (it varies from state to state) is 19 weeks across the nation - then you are an officer. That is ridiculous. Compared to European standards, the focus is extremely on combat and fighting. Psychological techniques of deescalating a socially charged situation and calming things down, by European standards are so underrated, that they do almost not exist, in comparison. I mean: 19 weeks versus several years of training, that is just a fraction of training time. That must have consequences, there must be lacks.

[Rockstar]

That incident was a pretty good example of crap, irresponsible attitudes towards those police are to protect and serve. Obviously a sever lack of understanding, improper training, leadership and planning. I saw an elderly man, passive aggressive, unarmed. Those children might want to reconsider how they train to respond to that. What little I saw there didn't seem to be very many protesters. There were more than ample police to break off a few to restrain and remove the man while the others covered and did the job of monitoring the protestors. Sad case of abuse of power because of piss poor training or lack thereof. Kids with guns playing army

[August]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Probably what happened: the police were instructed to move the protesters, this one guy wanted to argue/reason/jaw-jack. The police gave him a shove and he lost his balance and fell. Unfortunate.

That's probably what happened. I wonder how long those cops had been on the line. That was what day 5 of the protests? I read the other day that there have been over 700 police injured and several killed. Their stress and fatigue levels must be pretty high.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by August

Question for you. If you were in that well trained officers shoes what would you have done? Should they have attempted to put the man in cuffs for not clearing the street, ignored him, gave him a big sloppy kiss, something else?


There are lots of police critics here but I rarely hear what they'd do different so here's your chance. Enlighten us.

What will happen when the defence points out to the jury that George had drugs in his system and posed a threat to the officers. Another video shows a struggle in the back of a cop car that led him to be lying on the ground.

The defence could win in several ways, but of course it will just result in more protest and rioting of which a few bad guys will try and take advantage of it all.

[August]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

What will happen when the defence points out to the jury that George had drugs in his system and posed a threat to the officers. Another video shows a struggle in the back of a cop car that led him to be lying on the ground.

The defence could win in several ways, but of course it will just result in more protest and rioting of which a few bad guys will try and take advantage of it all.

Maybe, but the defendant kept grinding his knee into the guys neck for several minutes after he had passed out so that kind of blows the active threat theory and as cops themselves will tell you once the cuffs go on the struggle is over.

Also it turns out that the defendant knew his victim from working at the same night club and that they had "a history". Now there's talk about upgrading the charges again to 1st degree murder so maybe there is another aspect to this case to consider here.

But I was talking about the incident in Buffalo with the two cops in riot gear that pushed an old man down while clearing a street.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe, but the defendant kept grinding his knee into the guys neck for several minutes after he had passed out so that kind of blows the active threat theory and as cops themselves will tell you once the cuffs go on the struggle is over.

Also it turns out that the defendant knew his victim from working at the same night club and that they had "a history". Now there's talk about upgrading the charges again to 1st degree murder so maybe there is another aspect to this case to consider here.

But I was talking about the incident in Buffalo with the two cops in riot gear that pushed an old man down while clearing a street.

I think there might be more than meets the eye in both cases. Lara Logan should investigate because nobody else is gonna. Particularly the cop and Floyd in regard to what enterprises their "club" might have been involved in.

[Skybird]

John Kornblum was once America's ambassador to Germany. A cool-blooded, rationally ticking sly fox of huge analytical capabilities, I got the impression on several occasions. I usually respect what he has to say, so this time as well. He once shocked Germany when at best prime time TV he said in a TV talkshow that states have no friends, but states have interests. The Germans were so shocked that silence fell, so to speak.

Originally Posted by https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/ex-botschafter-kornblum-im-interview-trump-ist-zu-allem-faehig/25890924.html

Mr. Kornblum, you are currently in Nashville, Tennessee. How is the situation with you?
The protest has also come to us. We have demonstrations, there have also been looting and arson. The Court House, a historic building, was once set on fire. It's not as bad as in other cities, but maybe that's because of the curfew that was imposed.

What goes through your head when you see the nationwide protests?
I am a member of the older generation. For me it's a déjà vu. We have experienced this very often. I was in college during the civil rights movement. Incidentally, it started in Nashville, where the first sit-ins were launched in the early 1960s to demonstrate racial segregation in downtown snacks.

Nashville is a very liberal city, though in the south. On April 4, 1968, when the unrest started after Martin Luther King's murder, I lived in Foggy Bottom, Washington. In other words: America is like a tightrope act without a network - always on the verge of collapse. And that for 200 years.

So far, it has apparently mostly turned out lightly ...
So far, yes. But there were bad phases. For example, if we hadn't had Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, it would not have turned out well. It would have ended in disaster. The problem is that America's strengths are its weaknesses. We are dynamic, success-oriented, we move quickly, and we do not create the social stabilizers that exist in Europe, which we sometimes criticize as too stable and thus as crippling. The importance of such structures in times of crisis is particularly evident in the corona epidemic.

What are the current consequences?
Serious. Our health system is falling apart, as is our unemployment benefit system and our sense of social cohesion. The bad thing is that all of this is now happening at a time when we don't have a leader like Roosevelt. There is no one who appeals to the best in us.

In the current crisis after George Floyd's death, many Americans are especially waiting for words, for an offer of conversation from the White House. But only police officers and soldiers can be seen.
The problem is: Donald Trump would only make it worse with a speech. This president just can't speak. He can't say three sentences in a row, and when he reads something, his emotions usually go through with him and then something bad comes out.

Everything he has given in this crisis has only done harm. So the country organizes itself around it, the states take over. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, the states are also very powerful - but the system is currently being tested in a dangerous way.

In what way?
In the middle of a gigantic crisis, we lack national leadership. The economy is in dire straits, and now the old wounds of racism, America's original sin - in the middle of the corona crisis, are also breaking open.

Some people seem to feel that Donald Trump has quasi-magical powers that can even survive a triple crisis like this without prejudice. What do you say to them?
Well, Joe Biden is just ten percent ahead in polls. There is a way to beat Trump. He has no magical powers, but he is a gifted simplifier and polarizer. He came on the political stage when the Democrats and traditional Republicans didn't understand how deeply divided society was.

Not only between blacks and whites, but also between town and country. Trump has managed to motivate the 30 percent mostly white voters who feel left behind, the alleged “silent majority”. And because of the election laws in the US, that was enough, he hadn't won the majority of votes.

If you take that away from him by addressing the issues that are important to these people, it looks bad for him. He will not convince the other 70 percent with his current demeanor.

Trump has proclaimed himself the “law and order” president, who will forcefully restore security in the country. Could he even benefit from the current crisis?
That may be, the situation is so volatile that all predictions are idle. But: Trump is actually at a loss. He has only two answers on offer: he is pushing to revive the economy, and wants to restore law and order. The economy is unlikely to recover quickly enough, however, while the anger of some white people will still be there.

And with his confrontational behavior, he now risks that blacks and other minorities actually go voting - which they didn't do enough in 2016.

Some are already worried that he won't accept defeat in the end.
He is already attacking the idea of ​​voting by postal mail, claiming that this could encourage fraud. Trump will increasingly talk about the 2020 election being “stolen”. There is great concern that he could go so far as to trigger a crisis so as not to have to accept defeat. I personally believe that he is capable of anything.

But would he get away with it? Aren't the institutions strong enough to prevent this?
Our institutions have never had to deal with this. Remember: we do not have a single voting law, we have 50 voting laws. The states are independent, especially when it comes to elections. And then there is also Russia.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

John Kornblum was once America's ambassador to Germany. A cool-blooded, rationally ticking sly fox of huge analytical capabilities, ...

In other words: America is like a tightrope act without a network - always on the verge of collapse. And that for 200 years.

What an absolutly ridiculous statement.

Some are already worried that he won't accept defeat in the end.
He is already attacking the idea of ​​voting by postal mail, claiming that this could encourage fraud. Trump will increasingly talk about the 2020 election being “stolen”. There is great concern that he could go so far as to trigger a crisis so as not to have to accept defeat. I personally believe that he is capable of anything.

And then there is also Russia.

There is not a shred of evidence that Trump will not except an election result. Pure paranoia from the TDS crowd.

Trump goes around starting fires. Idiots like this guy pour gasoline on them.

[Skybird]

If resisting to Trump now equals "pouring gasoline onto the fire", then this shows how queer things in the US have become - and beyond repair, I think. Careful, u_crank, such a thinking is dangerously close to state-fascism. The flame thrower in the game is Trump, nobody else, and his fanatical supporters are who supply him with ever new fuel tanks. Resisting to Trump is no spilling of gasoline into a fire - its an ethical imperative due to the excessive destruction of social cohesion that Trump willfully does.


Kornblum just said what I have indicated in the past, too: the system and checks and balance of America were not made to deal with a threat like this. The founders did not imagine something like Trump happening. And how could they have imahgine that? Still in 2015 people considered it to be impossible. Worse is the intentional attack of Russia into American poltics - another sort of threat that the American (and western) state designs and social community and media policy designs have not been made to deal with. Trump - and his forerunners of the Tea Party - is like Covid 19: a new virus that breaks out and infects bodies and cells for the first time ever that have zero antibodies to it since their immune system have never met this virus before. As I see it, it cannot be predicted reliably how the American crisis will end, not even that it will end. Only the trend is clear, and this trend is not encouraging. I have said often enough that the legacy of Trump will stay for long after he has left office, whenever that will be.

[Catfish]

It's the words that make murder.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If resisting to Trump now equals "pouring gasoline onto the fire", then this shows how queer things in the US have become - and beyond repair, I think. Careful, u_crank, such a thinking is dangerously close to state-fascism. The flame thrower in the game is Trump, nobody else, and his fanatical supporters are who supply him with ever new fuel tanks. Resisting to Trump is no spilling of gasoline into a fire - its an ethical imperative due to the excessive destruction of social cohesion that Trump willfully does.

Resisting Trump in a Republic like the USA is normal behavior for those who oppose his Presidency. But how that is done is the question. Editorialize to your hearts content. Peacefully protest in the streets. Make a sign..what ever.

The idea that Trump will refuse to accept the results of the 2020 election are so far not backed up by any facts.

On the other hand there is a growing amount of evidence that his predecessor did just that. How about that? Does that bother you in any way? That a President would allow or direct (we don't know yet which is true) the power of the Justice dept. and the intellegence agencies to thwart the election and the an administration of his political opponent. Nothing Trump has done so far comes close to this.

Thoughts?

Kornblum just said what I have indicated in the past, too: the system and checks and balance of America were not made to deal with a threat like this.

And the threat is? Because the system of checks and balances doesn't work the way you want it to doesn't mean it doesn't work. There are three branches of the government. Trump as the head of the Executive branch is only one.

And here is the thing you need to know. If Trump can be removed from office for anything less than a crime or treason ... then any President can be removed for any reason.