HawkShack.com

These two men were basically murdered. I see zero proof that either of these men should have been attacked or treated as they were.

Ahmaud Aubrey was not engaged in any criminal activity. Citizen arrest law does not allow you to engage with another man on suspicion, get in a fight with him, then shoot him.

As for George Floyd, what kind of a vile human being pressing their knee on a guy's neck for six minutes why he's crying he can't breathe and ignores it? Do I want a police officer like in America. No, I don't. That's some third world banana Republic police work.

It seems we need to create a Federal branch for policing the police. The Georgia police tried to cover up Aubrey's murder for reasons I can only assume are corruption and racism. Floyd's death was a murder by police on tape. He's was sought for a forgery charge, a non-violent crime, wasn't armed, and cuffed on the ground while this sick human kept his knee on his neck. That is just straight up murder.

How do we make sure police officers are policing themselves to get rid of these trash officers who are acting like their third world cops that get to kill people with impunity?

I agree with you. The fact that proper authorities in both these situations failed to take proper immediate steps and/or took steps in the absolute opposite direction is unacceptable. It seems there does need to be some sort of federal oversight in place ... problem is I don't know if the federal authorities can be trusted any more than the locals. I think their decisions would probably be based on keeping public perception as positive as possible.

Kap's looking more and more justified all the time.

I'd like to hear the cop's side of the story before I jump to conclusions, but that video is damn incriminating and I don't see any way the cop can justify his actions. The man was handcuffed behind his back, so he wasn't much of a threat to him, and being a first responder, he had to know that putting his knee on a person's neck could inflict serious, life threatening injury.

But I'm not convinced that race had something to do with it. I'd like to see a little more about this cop's background. Apparently he was a veteran with quite a few years of experience.

The others that stood by and did nothing need to be investigated as well. It's not acceptable to just stand by and do nothing. It was a pretty sick, disgusting scene.

I'm not sure what the solution is. There's around 700,000 police officers in this country, and so long as they have to recruit them from members of the human race, we're going to have incidents like this. That doesn't mean that we have to accept it, but we do have to keep it in perspective. I worry about demonizing the profession and end up driving away otherwise good candidates for police work.

At least a Federal agency wouldn't have the local relationships of a local government with the police. It would be less biased than letting the city mayor or state governor send someone in who has local relationships to try to sweep this under the carpet. Just like when they dismantled police being used to suppress voting, Federal government going to need to step in to police the cops to make sure local relationships aren't covering things up for various reasons like releasing information on each other or being too friendly.

Aseahawkfan wrote:At least a Federal agency wouldn't have the local relationships of a local government with the police. It would be less biased than letting the city mayor or state governor send someone in who has local relationships to try to sweep this under the carpet. Just like when they dismantled police being used to suppress voting, Federal government going to need to step in to police the cops to make sure local relationships aren't covering things up for various reasons like releasing information on each other or being too friendly.

That would help the investigative process and make a cover-up less likely and I certainly wouldn't object to such an arrangement, but I don't see how that would prevent an incident like what we just saw from happening again. As much publicity that's been given to white cops vs. black suspects over the past few years, I can't imagine how establishing federal oversight is going to cause a wayward soul to reign in his/her emotions in a stressful situation like that.

RiverDog wrote:That would help the investigative process and make a cover-up less likely and I certainly wouldn't object to such an arrangement, but I don't see how that would prevent an incident like what we just saw from happening again. As much publicity that's been given to white cops vs. black suspects over the past few years, I can't imagine how establishing federal oversight is going to cause a wayward soul to reign in his/her emotions in a stressful situation like that.

I think a guy getting charged with murder and losing his job more likely will cause someone to think a bit more before engaging in obvious, careless brutality like this cop did. This wasn't a stressful situation. This was a guy who was careless about human life. Would you ever in a million years feel like putting your neck for six minutes on some guy's throat was acceptable? Or you reacting to stress? This wasn't a split second decision like some of these situations. This was a man ignoring a man crying about not being able to breathe that was as obvious to casual passersby. He has no excuse whatsoever.

And the Aubrey case was people way over-stepping a citizen arrest. I work in security. We don't have any power to interdict or detain people unless they are engaged in obviously harmful activity. You as a citizen do not get to stop someone from breaking into another home by shooting them. You can stop them by shooting them from breaking into your home, but if you physically get into a fight with a guy breaking into a neighbor's home and then shoot him if you get your butt kicked, then you just committed murder for a fight you started. Unless they have some weird law in Georgia allowing citizens to act like armed cops, I don't see how you get to do that with the police sweeping it under the carpet when no one was threatened by the man being engaged by the guys with the guns.

RiverDog wrote:That would help the investigative process and make a cover-up less likely and I certainly wouldn't object to such an arrangement, but I don't see how that would prevent an incident like what we just saw from happening again. As much publicity that's been given to white cops vs. black suspects over the past few years, I can't imagine how establishing federal oversight is going to cause a wayward soul to reign in his/her emotions in a stressful situation like that.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think a guy getting charged with murder and losing his job more likely will cause someone to think a bit more before engaging in obvious, careless brutality like this cop did. This wasn't a stressful situation. This was a guy who was careless about human life. Would you ever in a million years feel like putting your neck for six minutes on some guy's throat was acceptable? Or you reacting to stress? This wasn't a split second decision like some of these situations. This was a man ignoring a man crying about not being able to breathe that was as obvious to casual passersby. He has no excuse whatsoever.

I agree that it wasn't as stressful as a situation where the cops lives are in obvious danger, but it was still more stressful than filling out a report in the office.

And no, in that situation, where the suspect was handcuffed and there were other officers available to help him in the unlikely event he was able to free himself, there was no justification for his actions. Like I said, I can't envision a reason why the cop wouldn't have recognized that what he was doing was unnecessary and life threatening. The video is pretty damning. Nevertheless, I want to hear what the cop has to say.

Aseahawkfan wrote:And the Aubrey case was people way over-stepping a citizen arrest. I work in security. We don't have any power to interdict or detain people unless they are engaged in obviously harmful activity. You as a citizen do not get to stop someone from breaking into another home by shooting them. You can stop them by shooting them from breaking into your home, but if you physically get into a fight with a guy breaking into a neighbor's home and then shoot him if you get your butt kicked, then you just committed murder for a fight you started. Unless they have some weird law in Georgia allowing citizens to act like armed cops, I don't see how you get to do that with the police sweeping it under the carpet when no one was threatened by the man being engaged by the guys with the guns.

Agreed. Even if the assailants were cops, they are not justified in using lethal force unless it's a life threatening situation, and from the evidence I saw, it wasn't. I also agree that some sort of federal oversight would have provided a good safety net in the event that local or state officials sought to suppress it. But it wouldn't have stopped the shooting.

And of course, leave it to Donald Trump to jump into the controversy trying to score some points with his constituency in a purple state:

Trump added that he had talked to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz “and told him that the military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minne ... d=msedgntp

Looting does not justify the use of lethal force. No threat to property does. Only a threat to human life justifies the use of lethal force. That was the same mistake made at Kent State 50 years ago. They have other means to address a looting situation without shooting.

What can the cop say? I'm stupid, my bad? Or make up something that makes it seem like he doesn't have total disregard for human life and suffering? I don't know what you say when you're on video pressing your knee on a man's neck for 6 plus minutes that makes any of it seem justified or not a crime.

Aseahawkfan wrote:What can the cop say? I'm stupid, my bad? Or make up something that makes it seem like he doesn't have total disregard for human life and suffering? I don't know what you say when you're on video pressing your knee on a man's neck for 6 plus minutes that makes any of it seem justified or not a crime.

I don't know. Like I've said several times, based solely on the video, I can't imagine there being a justifiable reason. Nevertheless, I still want to hear what he has to say as it could provide some insight into whether or not this was racially motivated. I want to see if he appears remorseful, if he's had any complaints filed against him, what his fellow officers have to say about him, what the other witnesses have to say about the incident. All I've seen is the video.

I was just reading an article in the WSJ that prosecutors might have a difficult time proving that the officer acted with a “depraved mind without regard for human life,”, the standard that must be met for 3rd degree murder, which is what he's being charged with. A criminal law professor said that the video alone might not be enough evidence.

There's also the autopsy on Floyd, which has yet to be concluded. If he had some sort of pre-existing condition, like a heart problem, it's going to make it difficult to get a murder conviction.

Ironically, the black cop that shot and killed an unarmed white woman, also in Minneapolis, received 12.5 years in prison. If the officer in this incident gets off, the riots we're witnessing now will look like a marshmallow roast.

RiverDog wrote:I don't know. Like I've said several times, based solely on the video, I can't imagine there being a justifiable reason. Nevertheless, I still want to hear what he has to say as it could provide some insight into whether or not this was racially motivated. I want to see if he appears remorseful, if he's had any complaints filed against him, what his fellow officers have to say about him, what the other witnesses have to say about the incident. All I've seen is the video.

I was just reading an article in the WSJ that prosecutors might have a difficult time proving that the officer acted with a “depraved mind without regard for human life,”, the standard that must be met for 3rd degree murder, which is what he's being charged with. A criminal law professor said that the video alone might not be enough evidence.

There's also the autopsy on Floyd, which has yet to be concluded. If he had some sort of pre-existing condition, like a heart problem, it's going to make it difficult to get a murder conviction.

Ironically, the black cop that shot and killed an unarmed white woman, also in Minneapolis, received 12.5 years in prison. If the officer in this incident gets off, the riots we're witnessing now will look like a marshmallow roast.

I just saw a man murdered by the police over a forgery charge. That's just wrong. As far as that guy getting 12.5 years in prison, not even sure anyone will notice. No one seems to care about an officer in blue's race. If you're blue, you're blue. You lose your ethnicity and no one much cares about you.

I don't think it will be difficult to get a murder conviction. You're on video pressing on a guy's throat for 6 plus minutes. Crushing a guy's throat kills you regardless of your physical condition. You could be in the prime of your life and in amazing shape, have some guy crush your throat for 6 minutes and you'll probably die.

Most of these other cases I've seen you had some circumstance you could question. Aubrey and Floyd are two of the most clear cut cases of straight up murder that I've seen. No mitigating circumstances. Just a couple of citizens way overstepping their bounds and a cop who showed a willful and callous disregard for suffering and human life. These people have to pay the price for their behavior or we can't even begin to claim to be a just society. Hammer has to fall and fall hard.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I just saw a man murdered by the police over a forgery charge. That's just wrong. As far as that guy getting 12.5 years in prison, not even sure anyone will notice. No one seems to care about an officer in blue's race. If you're blue, you're blue. You lose your ethnicity and no one much cares about you.

I don't think it will be difficult to get a murder conviction. You're on video pressing on a guy's throat for 6 plus minutes. Crushing a guy's throat kills you regardless of your physical condition. You could be in the prime of your life and in amazing shape, have some guy crush your throat for 6 minutes and you'll probably die.

Most of these other cases I've seen you had some circumstance you could question. Aubrey and Floyd are two of the most clear cut cases of straight up murder that I've seen. No mitigating circumstances. Just a couple of citizens way overstepping their bounds and a cop who showed a willful and callous disregard for suffering and human life. These people have to pay the price for their behavior or we can't even begin to claim to be a just society. Hammer has to fall and fall hard.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, except that you're going to have to leave open the possibility the Floyd might have had a pre-existing condition. If that were the case, it could cause the charges to be lowered to a lesser charge, like negligent manslaughter (not sure of the legal differences in charges).

There's been some information that has surfaced that the two men might have known each other, that they once both worked as security at the same club. There's also the matter of 17 complaints lodged against the officer, with all but one dismissed w/o any discipline. He also has a Laotian wife, and although that doesn't prove he isn't a racist, it doesn't fit the profile of a white supremist, either. In any event, there's still a lot left to this story, although it's not likely to change the nature of the incident, ie a very blatant murder.

RiverDog wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, except that you're going to have to leave open the possibility the Floyd might have had a pre-existing condition. If that were the case, it could cause the charges to be lowered to a lesser charge, like negligent manslaughter (not sure of the legal differences in charges).

There's been some information that has surfaced that the two men might have known each other, that they once both worked as security at the same club. There's also the matter of 17 complaints lodged against the officer, with all but one dismissed w/o any discipline. He also has a Laotian wife, and although that doesn't prove he isn't a racist, it doesn't fit the profile of a white supremist, either. In any event, there's still a lot left to this story, although it's not likely to change the nature of the incident, ie a very blatant murder.

Does it even matter if he was a racist? If he did that to anyone, he should be charged and headed to jail. If he did that to you, he should be heading to jail. That's why I'm so tired of this narrative. Investigate these cases like these people are colorless. People looking at each other like aliens due to skin color is a tiresome narrative that gives each side the capacity to dehumanize the other.

Do you ever stop and think, "Do I even look at this man as different than me because of skin color?" And I don't. I don't even think about it. I don't know why so many do. I hang around my buddies or co-workers and it never crosses my mind to name them by their skin color. I don't see why so many people including our national media and politicians do it. It seems like this behavior in and of itself is a base problem because when you can look at someone as something completely different from yourself, you start thinking that you can't sympathize or understand them as a human. That's just weak BS. People should know better than to make someone else suffer or act cruelly to them or just turn away from their problems because of some inconsequential physical difference.

Heck, you're married to a woman whose ancestry is Latin? Do you ever stop and think of her as anything other than a human? I doubt it. People need to start thinking if any human should be getting treated like this. If their answer is no, they need to start stepping up to halt it. If it's not good for anyone, then the color of the people involved should't be a focus. The focus should be on the unacceptable behavior by a police officer interacting with a citizen. Then we provide clear guidance to police officers they can't act this way with anyone.

RiverDog wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, except that you're going to have to leave open the possibility the Floyd might have had a pre-existing condition. If that were the case, it could cause the charges to be lowered to a lesser charge, like negligent manslaughter (not sure of the legal differences in charges).

There's been some information that has surfaced that the two men might have known each other, that they once both worked as security at the same club. There's also the matter of 17 complaints lodged against the officer, with all but one dismissed w/o any discipline. He also has a Laotian wife, and although that doesn't prove he isn't a racist, it doesn't fit the profile of a white supremist, either. In any event, there's still a lot left to this story, although it's not likely to change the nature of the incident, ie a very blatant murder.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Does it even matter if he was a racist? If he did that to anyone, he should be charged and headed to jail. If he did that to you, he should be heading to jail. That's why I'm so tired of this narrative. Investigate these cases like these people are colorless. People looking at each other like aliens due to skin color is a tiresome narrative that gives each side the capacity to dehumanize the other.

It doesn't matter regarding the cop's fate. I was generally opposed to hate crime legislation when it first started coming out simply because I didn't think the motivation of a crime made any difference in what kind of punishment should be given and that we already have laws on the books that can deal with those situations. In 2000, when the NAACP made such a big deal about a hate crime bill that Bush 43 didn't sign and cited a gruesome, racially motivated chain dragging death in Texas, of the 3 charged, 2 received he death penalty and the 3rd life in prison. The specific motivation, say killed for money or if a lover left their partner, shouldn't make any difference: Premediated murder is premediated murder. There's plenty of laws on the books to cover hate crimes, adding more does nothing but make things more complicated and confusing. I called it "feel good" legislation as that's the only effect passing it had.

But it might make a difference in people's reaction, particularly in the riots and demonstrations, so yes, it does matter whether or not the cop was a racist and/or if the crime was racially motivated.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Do you ever stop and think, "Do I even look at this man as different than me because of skin color?" And I don't. I don't even think about it. I don't know why so many do. I hang around my buddies or co-workers and it never crosses my mind to name them by their skin color. I don't see why so many people including our national media and politicians do it. It seems like this behavior in and of itself is a base problem because when you can look at someone as something completely different from yourself, you start thinking that you can't sympathize or understand them as a human. That's just weak BS. People should know better than to make someone else suffer or act cruelly to them or just turn away from their problems because of some inconsequential physical difference.

Heck, you're married to a woman whose ancestry is Latin? Do you ever stop and think of her as anything other than a human? I doubt it. People need to start thinking if any human should be getting treated like this. If their answer is no, they need to start stepping up to halt it. If it's not good for anyone, then the color of the people involved should't be a focus. The focus should be on the unacceptable behavior by a police officer interacting with a citizen. Then we provide clear guidance to police officers they can't act this way with anyone.

Obviously I recognize if a person is black or white just like I'd recognize if a woman were old and ugly or young and beautiful, and unless you're blind, so do you. All humans are visually stimulated. It's not racist to recognize difference in our physical make-up, indeed, it helps us understand who that person is and how we might want to behave around them. Same with our sense of hearing.

For example, if I hear a person has a strong, non English accent, I'll assume that they weren't born here (muscle memory sets in before a person reaches their teens and forms an accent that will last their lifetime) and adjust my vocabulary somewhat to try not to use heady, legal type language or engage in slang that the receiver might not understand. I won't say that I felt unencumbered, I'll say that I felt free. I won't say "he's way out in left field", I'll say "he doesn't know what he's talking about." I want them to feel comfortable talking with me.

As far as race or ethnicity being a focus, it isn't with me. But there are times that I will use race or ethnicity to probe a person's personality if I get the sense that they feel comfortable talking about it. Most are, and it can make for some good conversation. It's how I learn about other cultures and the differences in our life experiences. And I've been very successful in making friends in that manner.

And BTW, not that it makes any difference, but I was married to a 2nd generation Mexican-American. We divorced 30+ years ago, so my only daughter (that I know of) is part Hispanic. My current wife of 17 years is white. My brother married an Ethiopian, so my two nephews are bi racial.

Along the same subject, my brother-in-law speculated that one of the causes of the intensity of the riots that have now enveloped many cities in the country was set up by the lock-down and historically high unemployment. I tend to agree. People are on edge, frustrated with their predicament, especially when you consider that minorities are always disproportionally affected by a downturn in the economy.

I wonder what Georgia law is going to make of Aubrey trying to wrestle the shotgun away. Make no mistake, I think the two men far overstepped in their actions. Rolling out armed a pistol and shotgun to make a citizens' arrest is just asking for trouble and makes the worst case scenario worse as it did in this case. A man was killed as a result of their actions, and they should be punished. My concern is that because Georgia law allows both open carry and citizen's arrest will they turn this into self defense? Does open carry mean you can defend yourself with lethal force if someone tries to take your firearm?

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I wonder what Georgia law is going to make of Aubrey trying to wrestle the shotgun away. Make no mistake, I think the two men far overstepped in their actions. Rolling out armed a pistol and shotgun to make a citizens' arrest is just asking for trouble and makes the worst case scenario worse as it did in this case. A man was killed as a result of their actions, and they should be punished. My concern is that because Georgia law allows both open carry and citizen's arrest will they turn this into self defense? Does open carry mean you can defend yourself with lethal force if someone tries to take your firearm?

That's a good question, although I don't think it applies in this instance and would be a huge reach to use as a defense. At the time he was shot, Aubrey did not pose an immediate threat to the life of the accused, wasn't charging at or running towards him. There were other, non lethal actions he could have taken, like firing a warning shot or shooting at his feet. He did not have to take aim and kill him to preserve his own life.

If I'm a juror, I would have a tough time getting past your first observation: Rolling out armed with a pistol and shotgun to make a citizen's arrest. They initiated the confrontation and will have to suffer the consequences of it going bad. IMO the only way your logic would apply is if a person carrying a weapon did not initiate the action and was assaulted while they were carrying a weapon.

But River, the video clearly shows that Aubrey was wrestling with the man for his shotgun. They both had hands on it. As to why Aubrey decided to try and take a gun away from an armed man isn't conclusive. I don't know what I would do; do I comply with an armed man or do I try and turn the tables by taking his weapon from him?

I just wonder will they be able to draw that fine a line. Still a stupid decision for them to bring guns into the situation, and I completely agree they made the situation what it was and should suffer the consequences.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:But River, the video clearly shows that Aubrey was wrestling with the man for his shotgun. They both had hands on it. As to why Aubrey decided to try and take a gun away from an armed man isn't conclusive. I don't know what I would do; do I comply with an armed man or do I try and turn the tables by taking his weapon from him?

I just wonder will they be able to draw that fine a line. Still a stupid decision for them to bring guns into the situation, and I completely agree they made the situation what it was and should suffer the consequences.

I agree with most of what you're saying. I'm just saying that it wouldn't cut any consideration with me. They did not bring their guns with them because they were fearful of their own lives, which is the only justification for taking someone else's life. They engaged in an offensive act: They were going to track down a suspect in a robbery.

RiverDog wrote:Obviously I recognize if a person is black or white just like I'd recognize if a woman were old and ugly or young and beautiful, and unless you're blind, so do you. All humans are visually stimulated. It's not racist to recognize difference in our physical make-up, indeed, it helps us understand who that person is and how we might want to behave around them. Same with our sense of hearing.

That is not true. You can see a difference in skin color or accent, but you do not have to interpret in the manner you do. There are plenty of other people as dark as Africans, yet we do not call them "black." That is an idea specifically taught to you, so that you see yourself as something else. What do you refer to yourself as?

One of the most problematic examples is the idea of American. When I was young so many people thought of Americans as only white, basically someone who looked like European ancestry. Folk of African descent were either black, negro, or African-American, but always the idea that they are something "other" or "alien" or "outsider." Yet when I associated with folk of African descent, they were not like that at all. The men and women born here spoke English, acted American, believed in American ideals, and weren't much different than folk of European ancestry other than a difference in skin coloration and some minor things like perhaps musical taste. That's it.

Near as I could see the only reason to see them as a black or African-American if the person is being respectful, is that person is seeing them as other than themselves as in an outsider or stranger. They don't see them as a fellow American or part of the same nation. That has been illustrated over and over and over and over again, even from polite liberal Democrats.

I believe that this is very clearly part of the issue. Once you see someone as something other than yourself, something you pretend not to understand either out of a fake respect for that group or a lack of desire to engage for whatever reason, we get this kind of crap over and over and over again. It's been clearly illustrated psychologically that it exists in America. Why? It is because of how American leadership in the past socialized the racial hierarchy. They taught you to see someone as black within the nation to ensure division and allow them to use one group against the other as is still being done to this day. You even acknowledge Donald Trump is doing this to obtain votes and foment unrest between groups.

If want this nation to be free, that type of crap has to go. The racial hierarchy needs to be dismantled. America has a poisonous idea of race and I have a made a conscious effort to avoid inculcating the racial ideas taught in America. I think they are the underlying problem and allow too often people to look at another person and dehumanize and desensitize themselves to their troubles and issues.

For example, if I hear a person has a strong, non English accent, I'll assume that they weren't born here (muscle memory sets in before a person reaches their teens and forms an accent that will last their lifetime) and adjust my vocabulary somewhat to try not to use heady, legal type language or engage in slang that the receiver might not understand. I won't say that I felt unencumbered, I'll say that I felt free. I won't say "he's way out in left field", I'll say "he doesn't know what he's talking about." I want them to feel comfortable talking with me.

As far as race or ethnicity being a focus, it isn't with me. But there are times that I will use race or ethnicity to probe a person's personality if I get the sense that they feel comfortable talking about it. Most are, and it can make for some good conversation. It's how I learn about other cultures and the differences in our life experiences. And I've been very successful in making friends in that manner.

And BTW, not that it makes any difference, but I was married to a 2nd generation Mexican-American. We divorced 30+ years ago, so my only daughter (that I know of) is part Hispanic. My current wife of 17 years is white. My brother married an Ethiopian, so my two nephews are bi racial.

You don't seem much you like buy into the racist crap. Racism has always been super tiresome. I don't even get it. Maybe it's because like you're daughter I'm mixed European-Latin ancestry. Never crossed my mind to look at my parents as other than people first. I carried that with me into the world. Makes it far easier not to feel like you're part of a particular group and just be a person. Nothing to identify much with other than your nationality.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:But River, the video clearly shows that Aubrey was wrestling with the man for his shotgun. They both had hands on it. As to why Aubrey decided to try and take a gun away from an armed man isn't conclusive. I don't know what I would do; do I comply with an armed man or do I try and turn the tables by taking his weapon from him?

I just wonder will they be able to draw that fine a line. Still a stupid decision for them to bring guns into the situation, and I completely agree they made the situation what it was and should suffer the consequences.

If Aubrey was being threatened by armed men and he fought back, I would classify that as self-defense. I think that is the gist of the case. Do you get to instigate a fight with someone and if you feel like you're going to lose, you shoot the other man? This is similar to what happened with the idiot in Florida George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin. You instigate a fight, lose the fight, then draw your weapon and kill the other man and call it self-defense.

It's one thing to have the police with actual police powers acting incompetently and killing someone. That's bound to happen and does so often because they engage in a difficult and dangerous job. If we're not sending clear messages to citizens that they don't have police powers, can't engage other citizens with weapons in things like citizen's arrest who aren't on their property, and aren't allowed to shoot someone who they engage in a hostile situation and lose a fist or physical fight to, then we're going to be in for more of these bad instances. The message needs to be sent that a lost fist fight or physical altercation instigated by your illegal actions doesn't give you the right to shoot someone.

Aseahawkfan wrote:That is not true. You can see a difference in skin color or accent, but you do not have to interpret in the manner you do. There are plenty of other people as dark as Africans, yet we do not call them "black." That is an idea specifically taught to you, so that you see yourself as something else. What do you refer to yourself as?

I probably shouldn't have linked skin color with accent as adjusting the way I approach an individual because I don't change very much of my behavior. But there are some small things that I have to do to make sure that I don't unintentionally offend a black person. For example, I might ask a white person "how's your boy doing?", but if a person is black, I try to avoid using the term "boy" and would substitute the term "son" as boy has racial overtones, and yes, that's something I was taught. There are some people of all races that are oversensitive to the slightest perceived insult, so it's best to avoid it if you can.

What do I call myself? I have to laugh at that question because at work we once we had to take a survey and there was no option for white or Caucasian under race, rather I learned of a new demographic group: Euro-American. Personally, I'd like to rid ourselves of the hyphenated categories and consider everyone just one homogeneous mass, which will become an eventuality in a few hundred years anyway as recessive traits start to become extinct (blondes will be the first to go).

Aseahawkfan wrote:One of the most problematic examples is the idea of American. When I was young so many people thought of Americans as only white, basically someone who looked like European ancestry. Folk of African descent were either black, negro, or African-American, but always the idea that they are something "other" or "alien" or "outsider." Yet when I associated with folk of African descent, they were not like that at all. The men and women born here spoke English, acted American, believed in American ideals, and weren't much different than folk of European ancestry other than a difference in skin coloration and some minor things like perhaps musical taste. That's it.

I was born in 1954 and grew up in the relatively rural town of Walla Walla. I associated with a small number of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians (we called them Orientals at the time), but I never thought of them as anything but Americans. But my dad sure did.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Near as I could see the only reason to see them as a black or African-American if the person is being respectful, is that person is seeing them as other than themselves as in an outsider or stranger. They don't see them as a fellow American or part of the same nation. That has been illustrated over and over and over and over again, even from polite liberal Democrats.

I do think that our different experiences, my growing up white and my friends growing up as something else, are worth discussing. One of my best friends emigrated here from Romania in 1980. He's the one that told me about accents, how when a person speaks with an accent that the impression they're giving others is that they're dumb, and he was exactly right. It was something I had never thought of. I've repeated that story to a number of my foreign born friends, and it's helped them understand what kind of biases they're up against. Likewise, I've had my black friends tell me of some of the biases they've had to endure. You don't solve problems by ignoring them.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You don't seem much you like buy into the racist crap. Racism has always been super tiresome. I don't even get it. Maybe it's because like you're daughter I'm mixed European-Latin ancestry. Never crossed my mind to look at my parents as other than people first. I carried that with me into the world. Makes it far easier not to feel like you're part of a particular group and just be a person. Nothing to identify much with other than your nationality.

Not to blow my own horn, but I had an incident where a Laotian person, of whom I did not know and that worked on a different shift, approached me with a Laotian friend of hers that didn't speak much English. She had been sent home, and rightfully so, by our assistant HR manager because she was thought to have pink eye, a very contagious disease, and told to go see a doctor. She went to an urgent care clinic and was told by a doctor that it was infected but not pink eye, and had a note saying so. However, when she went to the timekeeper and asked to be paid for the time she missed, the timekeeper (who could be a real b****) blew her off. I told the two to come with me. We walked in through the HR office, past the timekeeper, and we sat down in the HR manager's office. The result was that we got her paid for the day she was sent home.

What had happened was that the lady didn't know what to do and when she told one of her friends about her problem, they told her not to mess with going to HR, you go find RiverDog, he'll get it straightened out for you. I felt pretty good about myself that day.

RiverDog wrote:Not to blow my own horn, but I had an incident where a Laotian person, of whom I did not know and that worked on a different shift, approached me with a Laotian friend of hers that didn't speak much English. She had been sent home, and rightfully so, by our assistant HR manager because she was thought to have pink eye, a very contagious disease, and told to go see a doctor. She went to an urgent care clinic and was told by a doctor that it was infected but not pink eye, and had a note saying so. However, when she went to the timekeeper and asked to be paid for the time she missed, the timekeeper (who could be a real b****) blew her off. I told the two to come with me. We walked in through the HR office, past the timekeeper, and we sat down in the HR manager's office. The result was that we got her paid for the day she was sent home.

What had happened was that the lady didn't know what to do and when she told one of her friends about her problem, they told her not to mess with going to HR, you go find RiverDog, he'll get it straightened out for you. I felt pretty good about myself that day.

That's good. I wish more people would act like this. I remain patient when dealing with immigrant folk as well. Many people don't seem to get that many of these folks are scared from being in a new nation and dealing with new people, fear being perceived in a negative way or being a problem, and thus will be quiet when they need real help. So I always try to explain their rights to them and advise them who to talk to to resolve problems as well. They are usually very appreciative to find someone who is willing to help them help themselves. This anti-immigrant rhetoric only makes them more tense and fearful. I always try to explain the difference between what a majority of Americans really think versus what the media puts on TV.

It's always good to see Americans show some understanding and patience with folk new to the land. It's hard to move to a new land, learn the language, and adapt to the culture, laws, and norms of a new place.

Sorry for the diversion. Since my personality was being dissected a bit, I felt like sharing something personal. Back to the OP.

I can't help thinking that there is a direct relationship between the reaction to the Floyd murder and the coronavirus lockdown/economic meltdown. They could have strung up the offending cop in a public hanging hours after the video went viral and it wouldn't have stopped the riots from happening. In every economic crisis, it's the low income folks, mostly minorities, that lose their jobs first and by definition are in a worse position to survive the storm than the average American.

There are neo Nazi and white supremist groups out there that are using the riots as a recruiting tool, and given that the far right is already pissed off about the shutdown and are anti government to begin with, they're likely to succeed. This is as bad of a situation as I've seen our country in my lifetime.

And although I don't think that having a different POTUS would have changed anything with regard to the protests, Trump is the worst type of person to have in a leadership position during a nation wide riot. His fighting with the mayor of Minneapolis and his brazen tweets are not helping the situation one bit.

The pent up energy of the lockdowns or equivalent and the angst about the economy doesn't help, but I
heard the Governor of Minnesota saying most of the damage was caused by people not from Minnesota.
He mentioned white supremacists and anarchists who are taking advantage of the situation there and that's
how some of the black owned businesses got burned down. The impression I got from his press conference
is that there were some agent provocateurs involved from a number of groups present and they were the
ones causing problems. I expect some were just kids hoping to get a thrill, but from the little we saw on
TV, it seemed that those causing problems had some type of agenda. Those who are serious about wanting
justice and change were not the ones causing destruction.

NorthHawk wrote:The pent up energy of the lockdowns or equivalent and the angst about the economy doesn't help, but I
heard the Governor of Minnesota saying most of the damage was caused by people not from Minnesota.
He mentioned white supremacists and anarchists who are taking advantage of the situation there and that's
how some of the black owned businesses got burned down. The impression I got from his press conference
is that there were some agent provocateurs involved from a number of groups present and they were the
ones causing problems. I expect some were just kids hoping to get a thrill, but from the little we saw on
TV, it seemed that those causing problems had some type of agenda. Those who are serious about wanting
justice and change were not the ones causing destruction.

It's not just Minneapolis. There are cities in more than a dozen states and DC where the National Guard had to be called out. Although I'm sure that you can blame some of the damage and destruction on white supremist and anarchists, you certainly can't hang a significant percentage of it on them. Keep in mind that the governor is a politician that does not want to offend any of his constituents, and if there's any way he can get out of being critical of them, he's likely to jump on that opportunity.

I've seen a whole lot of black faces on film, looting, burning police cars, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other groups that piggy backed on the demonstrators and tried to exasperate the situation, but it's hard to get around those images we're seeing on TV.

Like a lot of demonstrations, they start out being peaceful, but it doesn't take but one person out of a thousand to throw a rock at a cop car or a store front window for others to join in. It's the epitome of a mob mentality.

I'm sure that the authorities will be examining the riots and their root cause in the weeks and months to come.

So was the "official" autopsy rushed and politically influenced?

https://abc7.com/politics/george-floyd- ... njFXA7OeRU

c_hawkbob wrote:So was the "official" autopsy rushed and politically influenced?

https://abc7.com/politics/george-floyd- ... njFXA7OeRU

The "official" autopsy isn't completed. They've only released preliminary findings. They have to wait for the toxicology report to come back, perhaps in another week or two.

c_hawkbob wrote:So was the "official" autopsy rushed and politically influenced?

https://abc7.com/politics/george-floyd- ... njFXA7OeRU

I don't need an autopsy to know when something is wrong. I imagine the courts need to this to pursue the murder charge. The official autopsy sounds fishy to me.

c_hawkbob wrote:So was the "official" autopsy rushed and politically influenced?

https://abc7.com/politics/george-floyd- ... njFXA7OeRU

RiverDog wrote:The "official" autopsy isn't completed. They've only released preliminary findings. They have to wait for the toxicology report to come back, perhaps in another week or two.

Yet they sure rushed to announce that it wasn't asphyxia or strangulation. A determination now in direct dispute.

c_hawkbob wrote:So was the "official" autopsy rushed and politically influenced?

https://abc7.com/politics/george-floyd- ... njFXA7OeRU

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't need an autopsy to know when something is wrong. I imagine the courts need to this to pursue the murder charge. The official autopsy sounds fishy to me.

Unless you're an expert in forensics, of which I am not, neither of us are qualified to venture an opinion, certainly not one in which we haven't seen any first hand evidence outside of the video. All we have is a two different examiners offering differing opinions. They'll hash it out in court.

The prosecution has already filed charges against the officer for 3rd degree manslaughter. Floyd's family wants them to raise the charges to first degree murder, which is going to be extremely difficult as they'd have to prove intent. Additionally, if the toxicology report comes back and shows, as the county coroner suspects, that there was a significant amount of drugs and/or alcohol present when Floyd died, it's going to make Murder 1 much more difficult.

This case is going to spend years in the courts as in addition to a possible criminal trial, we're almost certainly going to see a wrongful death civil trial filed against the 4 officers and the City of Minneapolis.

c_hawkbob wrote:Yet they sure rushed to announce that it wasn't asphyxia or strangulation. A determination now in direct dispute.

Yea, I don't know why they released the preliminary findings ahead of the toxicology report. Perhaps they were afraid of rumors, that the preliminary results would leak, etc. But I don't think we can make a determination that the examination of the body was rushed. Not knowing anything about forensics, there was no murder weapon, no clothing to examine, a completely intact corpse, no ballistics, etc, so one would think it wouldn't be as complicated as some murders. In a case this momentous, you would think that the county coroner would be making sure to get plenty of other experts to support his conclusions.

It's no doubt going to be a contentious autopsy, similar to the Epstein death, of which Baden (the examiner hired by the Floyd family) had his nose in as well.

It's clear there are parties jockeying for what exactly might have caused Floyd's death ie underlying conditions (which the Floyd family rejects). At this point, Everyone can see that this was a cold blooded murder, regardless of toxicology result. Everyone is going to die, but they clearly sped up Floyd's death while they were on top of him, and did it calmly and cruelly.

I don't even think a 3rd degree murder conviction is going slow down the rage across the country. If they botch this by trying to get the officers off lightly (once again), I'm scared of what the reaction will really be. All out civil war is not out of the question in my view. Where else can it go? I think people have had enough.

RiverDog wrote:Unless you're an expert in forensics, of which I am not, neither of us are qualified to venture an opinion, certainly not one in which we haven't seen any first hand evidence outside of the video. All we have is a two different examiners offering differing opinions. They'll hash it out in court.

The prosecution has already filed charges against the officer for 3rd degree manslaughter. Floyd's family wants them to raise the charges to first degree murder, which is going to be extremely difficult as they'd have to prove intent. Additionally, if the toxicology report comes back and shows, as the county coroner suspects, that there was a significant amount of drugs and/or alcohol present when Floyd died, it's going to make Murder 1 much more difficult.

This case is going to spend years in the courts as in addition to a possible criminal trial, we're almost certainly going to see a wrongful death civil trial filed against the 4 officers and the City of Minneapolis.

Let me see. If I put my body weight and knee on a man's head and neck, what do I think will happen? Do I need to be a forensics expert to know this has a good chance of killing someone? I don't think I do. If I fight someone and do this maneuver without letting them tap out, I'm going to kill them or injure them terribly. No matter how you try to spin it, this cop engaged in a physical maneuver that is meant to injure or kill someone.

You could try letting someone put their knee and body weight on your neck at home if you want a better idea of how that feels or what kind of damage it can do. Have them do it on pavement for about 6 to 8 minutes. If you're still alive and mostly uninjured, then you can give us a first hand account of how that feels.

Suffice it to say I think they might be able to get at least to 2nd degree murder, but maybe not. I know that what I saw on tape is a maneuver you use to kill or maim someone, not control them. This guy is a murderer. Even if they prove he didn't have intent, I think they can clearly prove this guy had a callous disregard for life and treated this man in an inhumane fashion intended to kill or maim him.

RiverDog wrote:Unless you're an expert in forensics, of which I am not, neither of us are qualified to venture an opinion, certainly not one in which we haven't seen any first hand evidence outside of the video. All we have is a two different examiners offering differing opinions. They'll hash it out in court.

The prosecution has already filed charges against the officer for 3rd degree manslaughter. Floyd's family wants them to raise the charges to first degree murder, which is going to be extremely difficult as they'd have to prove intent. Additionally, if the toxicology report comes back and shows, as the county coroner suspects, that there was a significant amount of drugs and/or alcohol present when Floyd died, it's going to make Murder 1 much more difficult.

This case is going to spend years in the courts as in addition to a possible criminal trial, we're almost certainly going to see a wrongful death civil trial filed against the 4 officers and the City of Minneapolis.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Let me see. If I put my body weight and knee on a man's head and neck, what do I think will happen? Do I need to be a forensics expert to know this has a good chance of killing someone? I don't think I do. If I fight someone and do this maneuver without letting them tap out, I'm going to kill them or injure them terribly. No matter how you try to spin it, this cop engaged in a physical maneuver that is meant to injure or kill someone.

You could try letting someone put their knee and body weight on your neck at home if you want a better idea of how that feels or what kind of damage it can do. Have them do it on pavement for about 6 to 8 minutes. If you're still alive and mostly uninjured, then you can give us a first hand account of how that feels.

Let's get something straight: I am not defending the cop. I have not said that the hold he used wasn't life threatening. To the contrary, I've said that especially considering that he's a first responder, and a veteran first responder at that, that he should know that putting pressure on the side if a person's neck could cut off blood flow to the brain, and it only takes about 4-5 minutes without blood/oxygen for permanent brain damage to occur. I heard that he had his knee on Floyd's neck for 8 minutes. Whether or not the cop knew his maneuver was life threatening is not completely certain, but it seems common sense to anyone that's ever had a first aid course.

What I was saying regarding the autopsy has to do with the potential of getting a first degree murder charge levied against the cop. If Floyd was intoxicated or high, his body would not have been as capable of surviving the cop's restraint, which will make it more difficult for the prosecution. A slick defense attorney could claim, with some degree of accuracy, that "if that guy wasn't bombed out of his gourd, he'd be alive today!"

Aseahawkfan wrote:Suffice it to say I think they might be able to get at least to 2nd degree murder, but maybe not. I know that what I saw on tape is a maneuver you use to kill or maim someone, not control them. This guy is a murderer. Even if they prove he didn't have intent, I think they can clearly prove this guy had a callous disregard for life and treated this man in an inhumane fashion intended to kill or maim him.

I don't know what Minnesota law says about the differences between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder is, but in general, first degree requires that they prove intent, that he wanted to kill him. IMO that's going to be a pretty tough roe to hoe.

Barring any other evidence that we might not have seen....and I can't imagine what I might see or hear that would cause me to change my mind...I agree, this guy is a murderer, the only question being to what degree.

I'm not sure if this is a revised autopsy, but the "official" version is now ruling Floyd's death a homicide:

“Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s),” the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office said in a news release. Cause of death was listed as “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression.”

Under "other significant conditions” it said Floyd suffered from heart disease and hypertension, and listed fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use. Those factors were not listed under cause of death.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Geo ... 307877.php

That description still gives defense lawyers PLENTY of wiggle room. They conveniently and conspicuously left out ashphyxiation. If the 4 cops get off easy (yet again), I think the reaction will make Rodney King verdict pale in comparison.

I-5 wrote:That description still gives defense lawyers PLENTY of wiggle room. They conveniently and conspicuously left out ashphyxiation. If the 4 cops get off easy (yet again), I think the reaction will make Rodney King verdict pale in comparison.

I don't know enough about the subject to give an informed response. I don't know why they left out that term. I do know that ashphyziation is one of several causes of cardiac arrest. Perhaps they couldn't pinpoint the cause of his heart stoppage.

But I do agree with your last sentence, at least as it applies to the prime suspect.

The 19 year veteran Chauvin has to burn for this. The others are negotiable depending on how much awareness they had of what was going on or whether anyone listened to them.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The 19 year veteran Chauvin has to burn for this. The others are negotiable depending on how much awareness they had of what was going on or whether anyone listened to them.

Life as we know it is effectively over for Chauvin. He's going to end up with at least a 3rd degree murder charge, and there's not a jury in the country that will let him walk. This isn't 1950 Mississippi. Additionally, he's not going to be able to be put back in the general prisoner population as he most certainly would be subjected to the prison justice system so he'll spend 10 years or so in isolation. Because it was a violent crime and because of the politics surrounding his case, they won't be able to tuck him away at some country club for the rich and famous. And when he does get out, he's never going to be able to live a normal life again, likely to be hunted down and killed and/or tortured by vigilantes. He's going to pay a heavy price for his crime.

I'm not sure about the others. Not much as been said about their roles. I'm sure that their defense will argue that Chauvin was the senior officer and as such they were reluctant to contest his methods. They trusted that he knew what he was doing. They will argue that they were unaware that the suspect's life was in danger. It all depends on their lawyers and how sympathetic the jury is.

There will also be a civil trial. I'm not sure of the exact count, but there had been a number of complaints filed against Chauvin and was disciplined for just one of them. I'm not sure if that is typical of a 19 year veteran or not, but they'll be a lot of second guessing about the police department's hiring and personnel management.