Season Officially Suspended -- COVID-19/Coronavirus Talk

[Ranksu]

 

[bleedblue1223]

Apparently the cop that killed George Floyd was involved in other incidents and had previous complaints, when Amy Klouchar was county attorney, she didn't prosecute him. If she's VP nom, this is gonna get ugly.

 

[Ranksu]

 

[Blueston]

Apparently the cop that killed George Floyd was involved in other incidents and had previous complaints, when Amy Klouchar was county attorney, she didn't prosecute him. If she's VP nom, this is gonna get ugly.

She shouldn't be VP nom.

 

[The Note]

Apparently the cop that killed George Floyd was involved in other incidents and had previous complaints, when Amy Klouchar was county attorney, she didn't prosecute him. If she's VP nom, this is gonna get ugly.

That goes back to what someone else said in this thread. Until there's some sort of dissolution of the "the thin blue line" and politicians don't have to fear backlash and political damage from the police unions, this kind of stuff will continue to get swept under the rug. I don't think all police are bad and recognize the tremendous pressure they are under but -currently, right now across the country- there is no effective way of weeding out these types of cops. And until that happens people are going to keep dying.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Sad story, but at least people are helping them out.

Scores Sports Bar Mpls Rebuild organized by Paulette Bonneur

 

[BlueDream]

The video of his death is sickening, saddening and infuriating. Honestly, those words probably don’t do justice to the situation.

Arresting the officers as promptly as possible, in addition to firing them on the spot, is the only acceptable response. This seems about as clear a case as I have ever personally seen of police acting illegally. This coming from someone who is supportive of police and sympathetic to some of the challenging situations they face. But, not all situations require sympathy. This situation is one where being sympathetic should not even be a consideration. It was heinous.

I can almost understand the riot like response ...if you are purely thinking emotionally. But, logically what does looting and arson have to do with justice or proving a point that the a person engaged in what amounts to no less than murder and that his colleague stood by as the offense happened? The only protest that makes sense is a peaceful one. Responding to something illegal with something illegal doesn’t make sense to me at all.

Let’s add another toxic layer to the already bad situation by having the president, all but say that that if you loot, we will shoot. Wasn’t unnecessary killing the thing that kicked this all off in the first place?

I guess my logical and critical thinking brain does not understand why we have to add fuel to a fire that should not have started in the first place.

What’s the solution then?

Truthfully it gets tiring of people saying “this isn’t the correct response” about everything. They’ve already tried peaceful protests, multiple times, and people still threw a fit about kneeling during a damn song. It’s gotten to the point where it’s obvious that a lot of white Americans just want to sweep these things under the rug, and force these people to simply accept the bad things that happen to them (I’m not directing this at you personally of course).

What left is there for them to do? Sorry if this offends people but I f***in love what they’re doing. f*** the police stations. If they’re not going to do their job then they can get f***ed.

Ferguson was 6 years ago now. And still nothing has changed. So I can’t argue with the drastic response that is taking place.

 

[bleedblue1223]

What’s the solution then?

Truthfully it gets tiring of people saying “this isn’t the correct response” about everything. They’ve already tried peaceful protests, multiple times, and people still threw a fit about kneeling during a damn song. It’s gotten to the point where it’s obvious that a lot of white Americans just want to sweep these things under the rug, and force these people to simply accept the bad things that happen to them (I’m not directing this at you personally of course).

What left is there for them to do? Sorry if this offends people but I f***in love what they’re doing. f*** the police stations. If they’re not going to do their job then they can get f***ed.

Ferguson was 6 years ago now. And still nothing has changed. So I can’t argue with the drastic response that is taking place.

I understand the helpless/powerless feel, but this shit happened during Ferguson, so lets not act like this is the first time rioting and looting and burning has happened, and this was just an escalation to try something new to work. Now, I'm really not that against the rioting, and sure burn the police station down, that makes sense on some level, but why burn down affordable housing units, locally owned business, hell, minority owned business. That won't accomplish anything.

And people of all backgrounds are involved in the burning and looting, and probably like Ferguson, many of them are likely from out of town.

Hell, go burn City Hall down. Target the people that actually play a role in this, that actually can have some influence in this.

 

[Brian39]

I saw that this morning and, to be fair, even CNN mentioned in their coverage that the crew was behind the police line and were asked to move to the other side of the line. They were only arrested because they refused to comply with police orders on where they could and could not film from. CNN either wants to make this about the fact that the reporter was black or that they were just journalism-ing, but the crew was in the wrong and they were released almost immediately. Shame on CNN for taking away from the real stories in Minneapolis to push this false narrative.

I see you didn't bother to watch the video. Ranksu posted it and the full video takes 7 minutes to watch. The relevant part up to the point where he is arrested and led away is less than 3 minutes long. But here is a quick description:

As the video begins, you can see the police line behind the reporter. Notice how you can see the badges and face shields of all the police officers in the line. Badges are worn on the front of a police uniform and face shield cover faces, not the backs of officers' heads. You can see the front of the officers because the crew is in front of the police line, not behind it.

About 13 seconds into the video, you see a number officers start running from the line in the general direction of the news crew. The camera man focuses the shot on what they are running towards, which turns out to be an individual who appeared to have been running towards the police line. Officers contact that person and you hear the reporter say "yep, we've got one person being arrested here." At this point multiple officers that were approaching the woman now start walking towards the news crew and you hear someone announce that they are with CNN. The reporter tells the CNN desk that he is speaking to state patrol and says "they had us here." Over the next 30-35 seconds there is a conversation between the anchor and at least one of the officers. In this 30-35 second window, here are all the different ways the reporter indicated attempted cooperation:

"We can move back to where you'd like" (said twice)
"Put us back where you want us, we were getting out of your way"
"Just let us know"
"Wherever you'd want us, we will go. We were just getting out of your way when you were advancing through the intersection."
"So just let us know and we got you."

The microphone doesn't pick up much of what the officers are saying, but there is absolutely no indication that any officer gave any instruction of where the media was allowed to be or go. The reporter also made sure during this 30-35 second window to inform officers that they were live on the air and that the 4 of them made up the entire group.

The camera is filming officers for this entire interaction and then there is 8 seconds of silence where no instructions are given about where to go. The camera pans back onto the reporter and an officer is holding the reporter's arm. It is unknown exactly when in the conversation the officer began holding the reporter's arm, but I think we can all agree that an officer holding your arm generally means they don't want you to start walking away. The 8 seconds of silence ends with the reporter addressing the camera to re-start his report by saying "and this is the scene here playing out..."

Officers say nothing for 25-30 seconds while he gives his report, but the one officer continues holding his arm, physically preventing him from leaving. After a little over 25 seconds an officer says "you are under arrest" and two officers begin putting handcuffs on the reporter. He complies, twice asks why he is arrested and there is no audible response to that question. He is then led behind the police line you falsely claim that the crew was filming from.

Your description of what happened is false. It also appears to be at odds with the official stance of the Minnesota State Patrol, which announced that they were released "once they were confirmed to be members of the media." Apparently the police would have been fine with them being there if they had known that they were media members. I can't fathom how the officers didn't manage to pick up on all the super subtle clues that they were media members, but at least they managed to recognize that the video obviously shows them in front of the police line.

Moreover, the governor has described the police behavior as "unacceptable."

There is no false narrative being pushed by CNN here. They aired the video live as it happened and because they were filming a news segment, the video provided clear context that officers were standing still and watching them without issue until another party began to approach and forced officers to engage with that party. It was only at that point that officers began to care about the news crew being there.

 

[Brian39]

Apparently the cop that killed George Floyd was involved in other incidents and had previous complaints, when Amy Klouchar was county attorney, she didn't prosecute him. If she's VP nom, this is gonna get ugly.

As a prosecutor who isn't a fan of her tenure as a prosecutor, I feel the need to clarify this a bit.

The prosecutor's office is generally not involved in "complaints" against an officer because most complaints are related to attitude, procedure, etc. The only time a prosecutor would get involved is if the complaint alleged that the officer committed a crime. In her role as county attorney (the name of the prosecutor's office in Minnesota), she would not have been the person and that would not have been the office that would handle any of the non-criminal complaints against George Floyd.

There was a complaint against George Floyd alleging criminal conduct which did get sent to the county attorney's office while she was there. This is the one that has been in the news today and I assume is what you are referring to. It was an officer-involved shooting that occurred a couple weeks before she was elected to the US Senate and was referred to her office before she left the job to begin her job as a Senator. With that said, the investigation did not conclude until after she left and her successor did take the incident to a grand jury (which found the use of force was justified).

I'm not a fan of using grand juries in officer involved shootings when that is not the procedure for all homicides. I think criticism of her office's policy to grand jury officer involved shootings but not other homicides is absolutely valid. But I don't think it is fair or accurate to say "she didn't prosecute him." The decision to prosecute him shouldn't have been made until the investigation was complete, which was after she was gone. Moreover, if the office policy is to grand jury cases like that, a departing attorney absolutely should not deviate from that policy to make a charging decision on the way out the door.

 

[BlueDream]

I understand the helpless/powerless feel, but this shit happened during Ferguson, so lets not act like this is the first time rioting and looting and burning has happened, and this was just an escalation to try something new to work. Now, I'm really not that against the rioting, and sure burn the police station down, that makes sense on some level, but why burn down affordable housing units, locally owned business, hell, minority owned business. That won't accomplish anything.

And people of all backgrounds are involved in the burning and looting, and probably like Ferguson, many of them are likely from out of town.

Hell, go burn City Hall down. Target the people that actually play a role in this, that actually can have some influence in this.

They are, though. They’ve targeted police stations, which I think is great.

Here’s the thing: if white people would have been as outraged about the actual issue in the first place as much as they are about looting, then we would have never gotten to this point for the looting to even happen. But, here we are, because a lot of people value a Target burning down more than human lives.

 

[Ranksu]

 

[MissouriMook]

I see you didn't bother to watch the video. Ranksu posted it and the full video takes 7 minutes to watch. The relevant part up to the point where he is arrested and led away is less than 3 minutes long. But here is a quick description:

As the video begins, you can see the police line behind the reporter. Notice how you can see the badges and face shields of all the police officers in the line. Badges are worn on the front of a police uniform and face shield cover faces, not the backs of officers' heads. You can see the front of the officers because the crew is in front of the police line, not behind it.

About 13 seconds into the video, you see a number officers start running from the line in the general direction of the news crew. The camera man focuses the shot on what they are running towards, which turns out to be an individual who appeared to have been running towards the police line. Officers contact that person and you hear the reporter say "yep, we've got one person being arrested here." At this point multiple officers that were approaching the woman now start walking towards the news crew and you hear someone announce that they are with CNN. The reporter tells the CNN desk that he is speaking to state patrol and says "they had us here." Over the next 30-35 seconds there is a conversation between the anchor and at least one of the officers. In this 30-35 second window, here are all the different ways the reporter indicated attempted cooperation:

"We can move back to where you'd like" (said twice)
"Put us back where you want us, we were getting out of your way"
"Just let us know"
"Wherever you'd want us, we will go. We were just getting out of your way when you were advancing through the intersection."
"So just let us know and we got you."

The microphone doesn't pick up much of what the officers are saying, but there is absolutely no indication that any officer gave any instruction of where the media was allowed to be or go. The reporter also made sure during this 30-35 second window to inform officers that they were live on the air and that the 4 of them made up the entire group.

The camera is filming officers for this entire interaction and then there is 8 seconds of silence where no instructions are given about where to go. The camera pans back onto the reporter and an officer is holding the reporter's arm. It is unknown exactly when in the conversation the officer began holding the reporter's arm, but I think we can all agree that an officer holding your arm generally means they don't want you to start walking away. The 8 seconds of silence ends with the reporter addressing the camera to re-start his report by saying "and this is the scene here playing out..."

Officers say nothing for 25-30 seconds while he gives his report, but the one officer continues holding his arm, physically preventing him from leaving. After a little over 25 seconds an officer says "you are under arrest" and two officers begin putting handcuffs on the reporter. He complies, twice asks why he is arrested and there is no audible response to that question. He is then led behind the police line you falsely claim that the crew was filming from.

Your description of what happened is false. It also appears to be at odds with the official stance of the Minnesota State Patrol, which announced that they were released "once they were confirmed to be members of the media." Apparently the police would have been fine with them being there if they had known that they were media members. I can't fathom how the officers didn't manage to pick up on all the super subtle clues that they were media members, but at least they managed to recognize that the video obviously shows them in front of the police line.

Moreover, the governor has described the police behavior as "unacceptable."

There is no false narrative being pushed by CNN here. They aired the video live as it happened and because they were filming a news segment, the video provided clear context that officers were standing still and watching them without issue until another party began to approach and forced officers to engage with that party. It was only at that point that officers began to care about the news crew being there.

You’re correct that I did not see the video that was posted here. I was passing along information that was presented around 8:00 am this morning on CNN sister network HLN and THEY pointed out that the reporter and crew had been asked to move and refused. If that was incorrect based on what their own network reported at the time then I apologize. What I can’t excuse is the fact that CNN was making the story about them, instead of the events they were there to report on, which undermines the public’s ability to see them as objective.

 

[bleedblue1223]

They are, though. They’ve targeted police stations, which I think is great.

Here’s the thing: if white people would have been as outraged about the actual issue in the first place as much as they are about looting, then we would have never gotten to this point for the looting to even happen. But, here we are, because a lot of people value a Target burning down more than human lives.

Burning down locally owned businesses, minority owned businesses, and affordable housing units is not targeting those places.

Oh come on, everyone was saying that cop committed murder. I could see this argument being the case on others, but George Floyd and Ahmed Aubrey had immediate outrage from all.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

They are, though. They’ve targeted police stations, which I think is great.

Here’s the thing: if white people would have been as outraged about the actual issue in the first place as much as they are about looting, then we would have never gotten to this point for the looting to even happen. But, here we are, because a lot of people value a Target burning down more than human lives.

From the video available, the conduct of the officer(s) is horrifying and should rightly be investigated and prosecuted. I can’t imagine what possible defense there could be.

But what evidence is there that racism had anything to do with it? The officer was white and the victim was black, so we just assume? Enough to justify celebrating the burning down other people’s homes and businesses in your mind? If it was a black officer and a white victim, should I assume it was racially motivated then too?

If someone is guilty of a crime, or if someone is guilty of racist behavior, let’s go after them. But indiscriminately victimizing innocent bystanders is not justice for anyone. Cheering for the destructive activity of a riot is the kind of thing ignorant people pop off about online when they are nowhere near the violent mob and have never experienced the terror of being caught in one. I lived in Bell during the Rodney King riots, near the intersection where Reginald Denny was nearly killed when he was pulled from the cab of his truck. There is nothing that justified that act against an innocent man. I lived in fear in my own neighborhood during that time for months. We all did. I knew minority owners who lost their businesses. There was no sense in that, just selfish assholes stealing and destroying because they could get away with it. Your comments are reprehensible and ignorant of the suffering the mob is creating for many innocent victims.

We live in a society where people get punished for their own actions. The business owners and home owners who lost property didn’t murder anyone. You can’t even pretend to know the race of those owners.

 

[Ranksu]

All I can say this kind of thing would never happened in Finland. I shouldt say never, but jeesus doesnt these protest even use common sense is this breaking everything ok.

 

[simon IC]

I would like to point out that many of the people involved in the arson, destruction, and looting are outside agitators that deliberately went to the site of the protest with the explicit intention of rioting. They are using the protest as an excuse to cause mayhem.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

The stark contrast between someone casually strolling out of a Target with a Lego and a group destroying a checkout station right next to him is just plain crazy.

 

[simon IC]

She shouldn't be VP nom.

Biden would be wise to ask Stacy Abrams. Val Demings would be interesting, too.

 

[Mike Liut]

50 million people out of work in the US. They probably have a lot of built up rage and want to revolt.

 

[Celtic Note]

Qualified immunity: Police act like laws don't apply. They're right.

I had not heard of this before, but what reasonable rationale exists for why this “qualified immunity” is even a thing?

Maybe one of our resident legal advisers can share their thoughts? @Brian39

It seems to my laypersons eye that our justice system is preventing justice.

 

[Blueston]

Biden would be wise to ask Stacy Abrams. Val Demings would be interesting, too.

I get the sentiment but don’t agree with choices. Neither (but especially Abrams) have the necessary expertise or experience to be president. Kamala really makes most sense.

 

[SaintLouHaintBlue]

We live in bizarro world

 

[bleedblue1223]

I get the sentiment but don’t agree with choices. Neither (but especially Abrams) have the necessary expertise or experience to be president. Kamala really makes most sense.

I don't see an ideal choice on the market.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

I don't see an ideal choice on the market.

Could just pick a meteor for VP, campaign on a fresh start for all.