[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[El_Machinae]

Shock as people take out their anger on their local buildings

There is some validity to the idea that the violence is not being targeted as efficiently as it could be. This will always be true, but people's knee-jerk witticisms probably aren't valid

There is a super difficult cost-benefit analysis. Like, for example, if the rioting spread out of their neighborhoods, would the crackdowns become much more brutal?

What would the outrage to sympathy ratio become if the rioting moved over to the neighbourhood of the offending officers? Would Trump voters care more about police brutality? Compared to the current rioting.

Or if members of the community had selectively identified businesses that were racist or owned by racist or had displayed "all lives matter" decals, or whatevs, with the underlying criticisms and benefits of the rioting change?

We literally don't know, so the criticism that the rioting is hurting their own community it is true, but peaceful protest has only gotten a president that mischaracterizes the black lives matter movement

 

[Cloud_Strife]

just asking, who here thinks he intended to kill the man?
I think it was to inflict injury but not to kill. (but I wasn't there)

Still think drastic punishment is required.

If i put a part of my body on your neck and you beg me to let go because you can't breathe and i don't, is it really murder?!

Asking the incisive questions here

 

[rah]

The I can't breath declaration will cost him dearly with the jury (it better), but still not proof that his intent was to kill. (imho)
I won't be on the jury so it's only and uniformed opinion.

 

[Lexicus]

burning down a police building seems perfectly fine as a protest. I personally have. A thing about property destruction but as things continue to deteriorate and billionaires continue to print money for themselves I am more and more coming to @Phrossack and @Lexicus ’s conclusions that violence is inevitable.

I haven't actually claimed that violence is inevitable in an unqualified way. I do believe that if we don't succeed in voting the Republicans out, such that the Democrats have effective single-party rule at the federal level and in at least a good number of states, there will be violence. And I think it's most likely to be horrific violence perpetrated by the state.

 

[Lexicus]

The police officer has apparently been charged with third-degree murder. Apparently that means no intent to kill?

What a laugh.

I don't agree that it's a laugh, because I don't think it is straightforwardly obvious that he intended to kill the guy, and regardless I think it will be all but impossible to prove in court that he intended to kill the guy.

I would rather see him jugged on a lesser charge than see him walk because they overreached and couldn't prove what they charge him with.

 

[Farm Boy]

Didn't vet the source overhard:

Minnesota

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

 

[rah]

Well at least he's been charged for his actions. Third degree sounds about right based on the above.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't agree that it's a laugh, because I don't think it is straightforwardly obvious that he intended to kill the guy, and regardless I think it will be all but impossible to prove in court that he intended to kill the guy.

I would rather see him jugged on a lesser charge than see him walk because they overreached and couldn't prove what they charge him with.

I agree that he should be charged on whatever they think has the best chance of sticking, but in terms of being asked on the forum of CFC whether or not he was willing the kill the man, I think it's obvious that he was. We're not arguing in court here. It is a laugh, because justice is still hollow. Laughter isn't all about levity.

There's still so far to go (generally speaking, not talking about this one case).

 

[Lexicus]

I agree that he should be charged on whatever they think has the best chance of sticking, but in terms of being asked on the forum of CFC whether or not he was willing the kill the man, I think it's obvious that he was. We're not arguing in court here. It is a laugh, because justice is still hollow. Laughter isn't all about levity.

There's still so far to go (generally speaking, not talking about this one case).

Well IMO the "so far to go" actually entails that even hitting cops who do stuff like this with criminal charges is not a real solution. You will not be able to prove everything they do in court (especially given the "blue wall of silence" thing). You have to attack the problem at an institutional level.

 

[rah]

They just showed a clip on the local news of Chicago's mayor responding to Trump's tweets on the matter.

"And I will code what I really want to say to Donald Trump. It's two words. It begins with F. It ends with you."
Gotta love our new Mayor.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loc...olis-protesters-profoundly-dangerous/2280166/

 

[Colon]

Qualified immunity seems to be the name of the game on the legal side: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus/

It's pretty lengthy and I haven't read much of it, but Reuters tends to be thorough about their journalism.

Also, are American cops going to start harassing the press now?

 

[Farm Boy]

Start? When has that been uniquely American or ever not in force? Yes, yes do expect some of that.

 

[cardgame]

just asking, who here thinks he intended to kill the man?
I think it was to inflict injury but not to kill. (but I wasn't there)

Nine minutes.

 

[rah]

Duration doesn't show intent to kill.
But I don't expect that to play well with the jury either.

 

[Synobun]

just asking, who here thinks he intended to kill the man?
I think it was to inflict injury but not to kill. (but I wasn't there)

Still think drastic punishment is required.

I don't think he cared if he did kill. To me, that is equivalent to conscious intent. As an experienced police officer, he is aware of his own strength, what tactics reap the most consequence, and how fragile or durable human bodies are. He is not in a position to claim ignorance or accident. That leaves direct intent or not caring whether or not a death happens. Is there a reasonable difference between the two?

 

[rah]

That's what the courts will decide. I'm willing to bet it will be a jury trial so proving intent with 100% surety may be difficult.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't think he cared if he did kill. To me, that is equivalent to conscious intent. As an experienced police officer, he is aware of his own strength, what tactics reap the most consequence, and how fragile or durable human bodies are. He is not in a position to claim ignorance or accident. That leaves direct intent or not caring whether or not a death happens. Is there a reasonable difference between the two?

Negligence or indifference in a legal sense is not sufficient to show positive intent. The statement "The cop didn't care if Floyd died" is not equivalent to "The cop wanted Floyd dead".
I don't know how Canadian law works, but in US law going from "Didn't care if Floyd died" to "Wanted Floyd dead" is a very big jump.
For the record, these are the Minnesota murder statutes (non-relevant sections removed).

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
§
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:

(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.185

The prosecution might up it to Murder2 after investigation, but then the prosecution runs the risk of failing to prove intent to effect death and I don't remember how Minnesota law and trial procedure handles downgrading to lesser charges in jury deliberation. (I'm asking a lawyer friend now.)
EDIT: The prosecution can nest charges, so if the jury finds murder3 hasn't been met, they may find that manslaughter1 has been shown; and so on down the line.

 

[Synobun]

I really could not care less what the law says, given that it's the law that's failed.

 

[Ajidica]

I really could not care less what the law says, given that it's the law that's failed.

Given it is going through the court system, you sort of have to care what the statues say. Plus, the statutes haven't failed. I can't speak to the case law in interpreting the statutes because a) I'm not a lawyer and b) I don't have the interest to go through case law to see how statutes are interpreted.
Given the discussion is about how the cop is being charged, you have to care what the statutes say and how they define different levels of illegal killings.

 

[Synobun]

Given it is going through the court system, you sort of have to care what the statues say. Plus, the statutes haven't failed. I can't speak to the case law in interpreting the statutes because a) I'm not a lawyer and b) I don't have the interest to go through case law to see how statutes are interpreted.
Given the discussion is about how the cop is being charged, you have to care what the statutes say and how they define different levels of illegal killings.

Rah asked if we thought the cop intended to kill. So no. I don't have to care about that.