The Trial of Derek Chauvin

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, the police do in fact make major contributions to this. False arrests of minority people is epidemic.

I thought you just said that society creates a situation where more minority people are involved in crime?

Anyway... I can see this derailing into another mobile goalposts situation. Berserker made a point based on statistics. The other person just dismissed it as white supremacy, without explaining what was wrong with the argument or actually claiming the statistics were wrong. I'm saying he needs to work on his side of the argument.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You can say whatever about the semantics, or logic, or philosophy of the situation, but in the real world you would go down for it.

Indeed I would, though in a world THAT crazy it'd probably be worth the fight.

That's a different question, not "the real" question. The police are responsible for policing crime, and therefore they interact with the criminals that exist. They're not responsible for shaping society and determining which criminals exist in the first place. Not that the latter isn't A question, but it's not the relevant one when discussing the police.

That's not completely true. Policy swear their duty to the constitution first don't they? Sometimes that's easy to forget, considering their behavior. In less nuanced instances where a law is obviously wrong it should be within their discretion to not enforce it. That can get them fired, but it's better than an "I only followed orders" scenario.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's not completely true. Policy swear their duty to the constitution first don't they? Sometimes that's easy to forget, considering their behavior. In less nuanced instances where a law is obviously wrong it should be within their discretion to not enforce it. That can get them fired, but it's better than an "I only followed orders" scenario.

I don't believe the wrongness or rightness of laws is relevant to the point in hand though.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm against victimless crimes no matter what they are.

Yes, which means that you at least partially understand some of what both BLM and Defund are talking about.

Hiring police to over-police harmful laws will lead to bad outcomes. After that, it's just a discovery process on what to trim and where to put the savings.

 

[Lexicus]

That's a different question, not "the real" question. The police are responsible for policing crime, and therefore they interact with the criminals that exist. They're not responsible for shaping society and determining which criminals exist in the first place. Not that the latter isn't A question, but it's not the relevant one when discussing the police.

It's also sidestepping my point that dismissing statistics as inherently racist and verboten, without actually refuting them, isn't an argument.

The statistics are constructed by police interactions with crime, not by crime itself. This is a crucial distinction that completely undermines the point you are making. And that is leaving false/mistaken arrests out of the picture.

Now, you can assume that police interactions with crime are an accurate reflection of actual crime, but that would be an assumption you're making - and one we know to be false in the United States.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The statistics are constructed by police interactions with crime, not by crime itself. This is a crucial distinction that completely undermines the point you are making. And that is leaving false/mistaken arrests out of the picture.

Now, you can assume that police interactions with crime are an accurate reflection of actual crime, but that would be an assumption you're making - and one we know to be false in the United States.

How can you say that providing an actual argument is undermining the point that I was making, when my point was that an actual argument needs to be presented?

 

[Berzerker]

The statistics are constructed by police interactions with crime, not by crime itself. This is a crucial distinction that completely undermines the point you are making. And that is leaving false/mistaken arrests out of the picture.

Now, you can assume that police interactions with crime are an accurate reflection of actual crime, but that would be an assumption you're making - and one we know to be false in the United States.

Victimless and minor crimes allow biased cops flexibility when deciding to make arrests or not, but when a victim is in the morgue, hospital, or police station filing a report of a serious crime the stats are just stats. Americans face unequal enforcement of the law so I'd expect over policed areas to produce higher crime rates, but the over policing was in response to people using and selling drugs. Thats when the homicide rates start going up with calls for even more policing.

 

[Bugfatty300]

over policing was in response to people using and selling drugs

in black neighborhoods... but not in rural white meth counties or wealthy coke/pill snorting suburbs. Why's that?

 

[El_Machinae]

It will be a Venn diagram. The drug war hurt people and it intersected with racism in order to selectively over-damage a group of people

 

[Joij21]

This thread seems to have gone beyond the scope of the Chauvin trial. I think it's safe to say that a new "racist police" thread should be made to discuss the current discussion further.

 

[Lexicus]

but the over policing was in response to people using and selling drugs.

These kinds of comments are proof that you only use "opposing the drug war" as a red herring to poo poo any other type of action on civil rights or reducing racist outcomes. When it comes down to it you're not even really against the drug war...

 

[El_Machinae]

When it comes down to it you're not even really against the drug war...

Not really, he is. This is a case of "you're not objecting the way I insist, ergo you're not really an ally".
I disagree with Berzerker on a lot of facts, but I don't doubt his consistency on this one.

 

[Yeekim]

Or are you conceding that the statistics are true, but you just don't like people drawing inferences from them?

Fwiw, it is obviously possible to make erroneous or malicious conclusions based on true statistics as well. However, the response can not be simply censoring the statistics.

This is a great example of what "defunding" the police is all about. I suspect these officers did exactly what they were trained and equipped to do. Sending police to help someone who seems dazed or disoriented is just stupid. That's not what police are trained for. Do we call the cops when our pipes are leaking, or do we perhaps call a plumber?

Dazed or disoriented person might also be crime victim - or potentially a criminal. The issue in US seems to be that the cops are horribly undertrained (and over-equipped) for most situations, period. Not sure "defunding" is the answer here - I think proper training is more expensive than guns.

Well, the police do in fact make major contributions to this. False arrests of minority people is epidemic.

Victimless and minor crimes allow biased cops flexibility when deciding to make arrests or not, but when a victim is in the morgue, hospital, or police station filing a report of a serious crime the stats are just stats

Indeed, the (in)famous 13/50 stat refers to homicides. Today's killer might be (to a degree, let's not entirely ditch individual responsibility here) a product of injustices of past years or decades (which we need to identify and eliminate), but today's police can't be blamed for arresting him.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Some after trial action reports.

The feds were ready to arrest Chauvin right away in case "not guilty" came back.
He was never going to just walk away.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...auvin-court-cleared-killing-George-Floyd.html


Also, according to one juror "not-guilty" wasn't close to happening.
The prosecution and the video were extremely convincing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9520911/First-juror-Derek-Chauvins-trial-speaks-out.html

 

[Sommerswerd]

These kinds of comments are proof that you only use "opposing the drug war" as a red herring to poo poo any other type of action on civil rights or reducing racist outcomes. When it comes down to it you're not even really against the drug war...

I agree with the former somewhat, but not the latter. I think he's established a pretty clear track record of being opposed to the drug war, borderline obsessive at times, so I'll grant Berz that, despite our numerous disputes on things, including the drug war. Its a flagship topic for him, rather than just pure concern trolling. What I'll add, sort of in line with your first point... I have developed a picture over the years that his intense focus on the drug war and opposition to it is often, perhaps even mostly, used as a setup to criticize and/or blame Democrats... so yes, as you say, a red-herring tactic to poo poo something else.

Not really, he is. This is a case of "you're not objecting the way I insist, ergo you're not really an ally". I disagree with Berzerker on a lot of facts, but I don't doubt his consistency on this one.

I don't think its mutually exclusive. I agree that Berz has certainly been constant, as well as fairly consistent in his criticism of the drug war, but I also have developed the impression that that consistent criticism has been used essentially as a vehicle to attack Democrats. In other words attacking Democrats is the point, and opposition to the drug war is mostly a means to that end.

This thread seems to have gone beyond the scope of the Chauvin trial. I think it's safe to say that a new "racist police" thread should be made to discuss the current discussion further.

I think that the Disinformation and Police protests Thread serves a purpose similar to what you are suggesting, but our threads overlap alot. I've just gotten used to rolling with it for the most part.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I think that the Disinformation and Police protests Thread serves a purpose similar to what you are suggesting, but our threads overlap alot. I've just gotten used to rolling with it for the most part.

Wasn't there a general police brutality thread?

 

[El_Machinae]

In other words attacking Democrats is the point, and opposition to the drug war is mostly a means to that end.

I will disagree, except insofar as he will not exempt Democrats from their complicity, where there would be a disagreement on how to interpret facts.
This is now speaking too much about another poster, where we're trying to diagnose.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wasn't there a general police brutality thread?

I think it was closed.

I will disagree, except insofar as he will not exempt Democrats from their complicity, where there would be a disagreement on how to interpret facts. This is now speaking too much about another poster, where we're trying to diagnose.

I think your first point is fair, but again, I don't think your first point is mutually exclusive with mine. However, I do think your last observation is a fair point as well, so I will let it go.

 

[Joij21]

I think it was closed.

That or it became dead and buried.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree with the former somewhat, but not the latter. I think he's established a pretty clear track record of being opposed to the drug war, borderline obsessive at times, so I'll grant Berz that, despite our numerous disputes on things, including the drug war. Its a flagship topic for him, rather than just pure concern trolling. What I'll add, sort of in line with your first point... I have developed a picture over the years that his intense focus on the drug war and opposition to it is often, perhaps even mostly, used as a setup to criticize and/or blame Democrats... so yes, as you say, a red-herring tactic to poo poo something else.I don't think its mutually exclusive. I agree that Berz has certainly been constant, as well as fairly consistent in his criticism of the drug war, but I also have developed the impression that that consistent criticism has been used essentially as a vehicle to attack Democrats. In other words attacking Democrats is the point, and opposition to the drug war is mostly a means to that end.I think that the Disinformation and Police protests Thread serves a purpose similar to what you are suggesting, but our threads overlap alot. I've just gotten used to rolling with it for the most part.

I don't think it's a conscious troll, but let's speak clearly: the "drug war" is a conceptual label for a set of laws, policies and practices. The "drug war" (like the "war on terror") is not, in itself, a real, concrete thing, it's a label for a bunch of other real concrete things.

So I think it's perfectly possible to state and believe that you oppose the drug war, but then when it comes down to the discrete actions, policies, etc. that actually constitute the drug war, not actually oppose most of those. It would be like saying you oppose the "war on terror" but then you actually support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our counterterrorist deployments in Africa. I think actually that Berzerker isn't the only person who engages in this, and you hear "end the drug war" being bandied about as a simple trope that avoids the necessity for a complex discussion of real policies and alternatives. To some extent this is what's to be expected from political discourse, and a crucial difference here is credibility - there are a lot of people who will talk about the tropes but they have credibility when they do because they're clearly taking good positions on the concrete issues too.

I also think that in addition to attacking Democrats, what this is really about for Berzeker is absolving cops. A consistent thread of his argument recently has been that the problems we're seeing with policing in the US don't come down to "racist cops" but rather "drug war politicians" (who somehow all seem to be Democrats). There is some justice to the argument that cops are in some cases stuck carrying out bad policies but it's clear that there is a serious problem with cops not just being general-purpose racists but subscribing to a specifically violent and authoritarian far-right ideology that has racist undercurrents but isn't really reducible to simple racial prejudice.

At any event, my intent was not to suggest that Berzerker is intentionally trolling us all with his position on the Drug War, my intent is to basically imply that Berzerker has trouble separating the "real" components that actually constitute the "War on Drugs" from the trope he calls the "drug war". It's easy to sit and say you oppose the drug war over and over and over, somewhat harder to explain what's actually wrong with the actual policies, practices, choices, etc. that comprise the drug war and propose better alternatives. And where this ends up is what we both agree on: use of the "drug war" as a red herring while opposing most if not all of the concrete measures that would actually lessen the amount of police violence people are subject to.