Video emerges of Minneapolis police killing a citizen - - Riots

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

My my vienna has teeth to fight back with

At least I got you to read your bible (online that is)


‘Do not be afraid nor dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours, but God’s'. 2 Chronicles 19:15

Oh, cool, you must think Matthew 19:24 is pretty apt!!

[vienna]

But at least, unlike Florida, its said to be a dry heat...




<O>

[Catfish]

OT here, but since the media were a theme here.. also sorry for being late again, but since you (u crank) answered directly here, also as answer to August.

Originally Posted by u crank

I think that you have confused my comparison to agreement with Breitbart. You'll have to prove that. What I do know is that the Left/Right divide in media is now complete. If you read Vox, Slate or any number of left leaning publications you would see that. They are completely in the tank for anything the left believes in and diametrically against any right wing, conservative thought. And the same goes for right leaning outlets. What more proof do you want?

The truth is the media is not your trusted friend. They can be used to find out some facts and data but if you don't realize that all of them are constantly spinning a narrative that agrees with their politics then you are in a fools game that they have created. And what is remarkable is that people will cite left leaning media to prove that there is no bias.
The belief that there are neutral media sources is just plain naive.

"Left" and "right" have always criticized each other, in more or less(!) civil way. I do not trust any media news, i am trying to look at all (which of couse has become impossible with the internet) and wage them against each other.

BUT: there are still some journalistic principles openly visible that anyone can look at and check for himself. These basic principles are still being followed by some, but not by others. A lot of those principles have gone haywire in most new media outlets.

Any !"§$%&/ can create a website today and write his opinion into that, as people with more money can do this with a newspaper. I see Breitbart as exactly that. While Bannon at least may have had his right wing "vision" to destroy the state with the gospel of his "national populist revolt" (lmao, this literally means power to the dumb), Fox has nothing of it.

Bannon himself called his media "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016. In 2016, Breitbart News became a virtual rallying spot for supporters of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. The company's management solicited ideas for stories from neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups and individuals (proven!). It clearly worked to advance and market ideas of those far right groups.
I fail to see how this medium can be regarded as civil or even neutral, while comparing it to Vox, Slate or whatever other medium. This is a blatant attack on the state and another calibre.

While Bannon had his own medium for his vision to support the hard right, Fox is just an echo for the current president. They have no vision and no idea other than being pro-Trump (they are not even "conservative"). Anything that does not fit in their view is being left out, called fake news, dismissed, or warped in a way it fits their agenda. When something is being exposed as an ice-cold lie they call their opinion alternative facts, following their shining leader.

No other big media does it as blatantly as they do. Any comment or report in other media usually also has at least some critic for the left or even attacks it, but you will never ever find the slightest of this towards the right in Fox or Breitbart.
They cannot be compared to other media, the others are simply not quite on this level of lying and destruction.

I agree that media behaviour has reached an all-time low, but what or who do you think initiated this divide?

[Cybermat47]

James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution
In an extraordinary condemnation, the former defense secretary backs protesters and says the president is trying to turn Americans against one another.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n=the-atlantic

“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis writes. “The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.” He goes on, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

James Mattis is a veteran of 44 years in the USMC, the former Secretary of Defence, former Commander of the United States Central Command, and former Commander of the United States Joint Forces Command.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

My assessment is very simple. [...]

Not really simple but an excellent assessment.
There are meanwhile some videos circulating showing police officers who say they are on the (peaceful) demonstrators' side.

The U.S will have to throw the full weight of the law including the Federal Government against these former officers to demonstrate to the world that they don't tolerate this sort of behavior, even though they do. [...]

This is it, although those four officers probably deserve it they will also act as scapegoats for others, and the generally deteriorating situation. "Justice served" while the mindset of the fed. government still tolerates brutality towards black people, and remains the same behind pretended remorse.
It is about brutalizing the mindset and words, creating the general situation and making the murder.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I fail to see how this medium can be regarded as civil or even neutral, while comparing it to Vox, Slate or whatever other medium. This is a blatant attack on the state and another calibre.

Well I guess that depends on your political view. Lets be honest, we all have a political bias. I will admit mine. Although at one time many years ago I would have called myself an old school Liberal but now lean toward a conservative view point. But I still have many socially Liberal values.

The simple truth Kai is that you would be very unlikely to find a variety of political opinions at CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, WP or Vox. Almost all on air or contributing 'journalists' are blatanly Left/Progressive and vote Democrat. This of course can't help but slant the 'news' reporting and prevents true journalism from taking place. I've been following US politics since the Nixon era and of course the media's reporting of US politics. Things have changed although the media type's politics haven't. Back then they kept their political opinions to themselves for the most part. Not any more. Now they are proud of it. They're in the Resistance.

I agree that media behaviour has reached an all-time low, but what or who do you think initiated this divide?

It is complicated but in simple terms the rise of Fox News and other Right wing media was only natural and inevitable. And nesesary in the face of a very one sided coverage of politics in America. You can place the blame for the appearance of FOX, Breitbart and the Blaze squarely at the feet of the Left wing media in the USA. People today are much better informed and see through the left and right wing media bias if people care to look critically at what is being presented to them. It is unfortunate and I don't like it but like politics, media coverage has become hyper partisan. And I don't see it getting any less so in the near future.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

My assessment is very simple. The U.S, which is where I reside, has long proclaimed itself as the individual defenders of peoples rights, worldwide. The U.S has long complained about human rights in China and Iran, just to name a few countries.

The tables have turned and the U.S record regarding police brutality against everyone but particularly African Americans has been laid bare for scrutiny and scorn, worldwide. The militarization of local police forces has also been called into question. This didn't just happen with the murder of George Floyd. Others have lost their lives over frivolous matters in dealing with law enforcement officers. This is why you see Police officers joining protests as well. This incident and murder makes all decent and honorable law enforcement officers look bad. It also places them at risk for lethal retaliation and they are aware of that. There have been incidents of attacks on police officers in the last week.

These 4 former Minneapolis officers are hardly political pawns, as you describe them. They are nothing more than murders and should be treated and regarded as such. They are being held accountable to the same standard with which they used with other defendants who allegedly, let me repeat that, allegedly committed a crime. Our legal system holds that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It's a standard they denied George Floyd when they murdered him in cold blood. The 4 officers involved in this incident on the other hand, will have their day in court.

To save face, The U.S will have to throw the full weight of the law including the Federal Government against these former officers to demonstrate to the world that they don't tolerate this sort of behavior, even though they do. I fully expect Federal Hate crime charges to be filed in the coming days or weeks against these officers in addition to what has been filed at the state level. This murder has given the U.S a pretty good black eye on the world stage. I fully expect to see legislation enacted and bills written
to address these abuses on a number of levels. The Supreme Court should consider abolishing the Immunity that public officials like police officers have enjoyed to protect themselves from prosecution in engaging in crimes while hiding behind a badge.

For these former officers, they will have the unique opportunity to see the legal system from an entirely different perspective. If I were these officers, I would be scared. I'm sure they are in protective custody in jail but if they are convicted, they should be put into the general population and not protected. This would send a strong message to any law enforcement officers operating on the fringes of the law and serve as a strong deterrent.

Like everyone else in the U.S, It's been a numbing experience to have endured the last week. I have faith and confidence that the people in the U.S are good people and will have the will to try to make things right through concrete actions and legislation.

Your reply perfectly illustrated why I asked. Now, do not take me as wanting to attack you, I do not want that at all. But obviously you are emotionally quite engaged over the topic, and that is no surprise. I think the atmosphere is extremely charged up in the US, and this raises expectation for what the court has to fulfill in promises of the law, or promises for "justice". In principle you say that an example has to be executed, you do not name it that, but that is what your description is implying. And who could call you out for that? I don't. But there is a conflict in all this, because it mounts pressure and expectations. If I would reword my original question, i could also ask my question like this: with the rules on paper being like they are, is it likely that they will indeed be followed - or will expectations and street pressure and a political desire to solve this crisis and get back into an election campaign mode positive for the office holder make rules being bend and sentences being predecided just so to get this crisis solved for the time being? Will the other officers therefore maybe get a more severe punishement than they would have gotten under "normal" circumstances with less public attention? Thats what I meant when calling them "poltical sacrifices" or "pawns". They all share their part of the guilt, no doubt, but it is not as obvious to decide on them than it is to decide on Chauvin - it was him having his knee on the man'S neck. A smoking gun.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Not really simple but an excellent assessment.
There are meanwhile some videos circulating showing police officers who say they are on the (peaceful) demonstrators' side.
This is it, although those four officers probably deserve it they will also act as scapegoats for others, and the generally deteriorating situation. "Justice served" while the mindset of the fed. government still tolerates brutality towards black people, and remains the same behind pretended remorse.
It is about brutalizing the mindset and words, creating the general situation and making the murder.

To be fair, it isn't simple as you said. This is also just my opinion and of course others may have a different take on the situation. I on the other hand don't see the officers as scapegoats in the least. There are many documented cases of racially motivated arrests and abuses by law enforcement officers.

The murder of George Floyd is the tipping point. These 4 officers, in full view of recording devices, decided they were going to execute someone and didn't show the slightest bit of regard or remorse for taking a human life. The callousness of the officers involved in full view of everyone makes this offense all the more egregious. You are right about the pretended remorse and no law will eradicate long held prejudices. The key is making the penalties for acting on those prejudices so high as to act as a strong deterrent.

I'm sure these officers have investigated other crimes and perhaps murders as well. I'm equally certain the 4 officers didn't give those defendants a free pass. Why then should these officers be given a free pass and not be held accountable for their actions ? Apparently the Attorney General feels as strongly as I do regarding the conduct of these officers.

When these officers executed George Floyd, they victimized all of us, even if you don't reside in the U.S. The conduct of these 4 officers is an affront and insult to human dignity and truly diminished all of us as human beings whether you live in the U.S, U.K, Germany, Russia, France or wherever. Those protestors in other countries understand that and I'm sure many others feel the same way.

[Skybird]

What separates murder from slaughter is the willful intention to kill. "Vorsatz" in German.

I doubt that Chauvin was so stupid to intentionally commit murder while having cameras directed at him. His pose reminded more of wanting to pose with his prey - an impressively huge dark man - to his feet with his boots on the trophy. He acted brutally, no doubt, the motive for that has to be examined, and he probably underestimated the critical effect of his action with his knee and body weight loaded on the suspect's neck.

If you say its murder, you must prove that he hjd the deliberate intention to see the man lying dead to his feet. I base on the assumption that it was careless slaughter, based on the experience of living in a subconsciously omnipresent racist climate. I could be wrong, its just my preliminary subjective idea.

That everybody now calls "murder!" shows how charged up the atmnosphere is. And the pressure comign from that climate si what leaves me wondering whether the court will hold up its independence, even more so since politicis will issue pressure as well.

There should be a sentence for slaughter against chauvin, I so far think. but the reasons for that sentence must be crystal clear and fully rational and clean. This senteence will be example for the future, and that is why it is so important that it does not leave the smallest shadow of a doubt. It shall not become a payback trade for a history of America's original sin - slavery - and the follow-on racism that lives until today. That is object for political and social debate. A court must be above such things. A court shall not try to chnbage a culture. It is subject to chnages brigzht to it due to culture chnaging itself. The legal princples of the Us are far ahead of the present status of Americna sopeity and culture. A court shall neither want to rush ahea dof them even further, nor should it allow to lower itself to the standards of the embedding culture around. It just should stick to the principles it was given. Executive, legislation and jurisdiction must stay seaparate entities, and independent from each other.

[Bilge_Rat]

Tom Cotton supports President Trump, describes him as acting within the Consitution

In an extraordinary letter of support, the current Senator from Arkansas backs President Trump and says the protesters are trying to turn Americans against one another.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ry/ar-BB14ZqeC

Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.

But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.

These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives. Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further.

One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule of law.

In these circumstances, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to employ the military “or any other means” in “cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws.”

This venerable law, nearly as old as our republic itself, doesn’t amount to “martial law” or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested. In fact, the federal government has a constitutional duty to the states to “protect each of them from domestic violence.” Throughout our history, presidents have exercised this authority on dozens of occasions to protect law-abiding citizens from disorder. Nor does it violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which constrains the military’s role in law enforcement but expressly excepts statutes such as the Insurrection Act.

For instance, during the 1950s and 1960s, Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson called out the military to disperse mobs that prevented school desegregation or threatened innocent lives and property. This happened in my own state. Gov. Orval Faubus, a racist Democrat, mobilized our National Guard in 1957 to obstruct desegregation at Little Rock Central High School. President Eisenhower federalized the Guard and called in the 101st Airborne in response. The failure to do so, he said, “would be tantamount to acquiescence in anarchy.”

More recently, President George H.W. Bush ordered the Army’s Seventh Infantry and 1,500 Marines to protect Los Angeles during race riots in 1992. He acknowledged his disgust at Rodney King’s treatment — “what I saw made me sick” — but he knew deadly rioting would only multiply the victims, of all races and from all walks of life.

Not surprisingly, public opinion is on the side of law enforcement and law and order, not insurrectionists. According to a recent poll, 58 percent of registered voters, including nearly half of Democrats and 37 percent of African-Americans, would support cities’ calling in the military to “address protests and demonstrations” that are in “response to the death of George Floyd.” That opinion may not appear often in chic salons, but widespread support for it is fact nonetheless.

Tom Cotton is a Harvard Law Graduate, a decorated military veteran who served combat tours in Irak and Afghanistan and the current junior Senator from Arkansas.

[Mr Quatro]

What if???

The policeman involved get a plea bargain or even go through a trial with a mis-trial (happens) or get away with what everyone see's as guilty before being porven innocent?

The man in question was on drugs or at least had drugs in his system and was larger in size than most of them. He could've taken them all on standing up, which of course
does not excuse the policeman for not taking his knee off a man's neck that he had previously stood security watches with at a local nightclub.

These protesting riots are nothing compared to what will happen if the policeman get a not guilty pass ...

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

What if???

The policeman involved get a plea bargain or even go through a trial with a mis-trial (happens) or get away with what everyone see's as guilty before being porven innocent?

The man in question was on drugs or at least had drugs in his system and was larger in size than most of them. He could've taken them all on standing up, which of course
does not excuse the policeman for not taking his knee off a man's neck that he had previously stood security watches with at a local nightclub.

These protesting riots are nothing compared to what will happen if the policeman get a not guilty pass ...

That thought had crossed my mind

[Col7777]

I agree with Quatro above.

I'm in the UK and I don't really know your politics very well in the US, but I have watched a lot of crime documentaries and some court trials.
As mentioned above I've seen people get off on a technicality and a miss trial verdict etc.

So what I think is these protests and riots that have spread to other countries are actually making a difference, though I don't agree with the riots side of it.
But... I think the decision of the verdict will be very carefully thought out here because as mentioned above, (IF) by some chance they get a light sentence or even get off there will be a lot more trouble.

I will repeat, I don't condone the violence side of these protests so I'm not advocating this should happen, but I can see it happening.

I watch the video clips of the protests and news reports in the US and the UK and other countries and I can't help wondering what is in the minds of Chauvin and the other 3 cops right now.

Col.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by vienna

Say, Aktungbby, you don't happen to be moonlighting as a writer for Stephen Colbert...?...





I think you might have a case for copyright infringement...






<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Perhaps you prefer Obama's swearing in on his bible, uh?