Derek Chauvin Trial

I don't think it's ever good to rush to judgement but in this case we actually witnessed a human being get murdered. As usual, there are many who want to give the benefit of even the slightest doubt to the officer as if they are all heroes all the time or because they can empathize with whatever danger they feel officers are in. However, in this case, there's no blue wall making that case.

I've seen more of the video now leading up to the knee on the neck. What bothers me is that officers are often given empathy because they're in scary situations, but that's their job and they could find a new line of work if they didn't want to be in those situations. So the idea that they have no choice because its their job simply isn't true. But if a human being is pulled over by an officer they have no real choice to be in that situation. The officer is the only one who has legal right to be in control and the only one who seems to be legally protected from assault.

I say seems to be because officers aren't allowed to use force whenever they feel like it. But knowing this, they will often say the person was resisting. And it used to simply be their word against that of the victim. Now it's different because we have cameras and they have to wear cameras too and even though they know their actions are recorded, even still... they don't act like it because they appear to be culturally bred to feel entitled to abuse their power.

My gut instinct is to say "They're stupid" to do this on camera but they reality is they think it's right and may only realize it may have looked bad after the fact. This idea of power and control is a universal problem. Power offers the temptation of how to use it. For good? Or for evil? People's characters are exposed in these choices. While it makes for a nice story to think that all cops and soldiers are "the good guys", often they simply seek the power given to officers and soldiers.

The real question is, with all that we have seen caught ON camera, we are only left to our imagination to consider what happened for hundreds of years where there was no camera and no one cared how police did their jobs as long as they all felt safe.

But minorities didn't feel safe.

Floyd had no idea he was going to be choked to death but he foresaw a strong possibility that he would not survive this encounter. You could even speculate to say his fear of the cops was much greater than their fear of him and that's why he was acting somewhat irrationally about how to comply. He pleaded with him not to shoot him because, and I didn't know this before, he had already been shot by the police prior to this.

Are the trained officers the only ones allowed to be afraid in these situations? It doesn't seem fair. Part of the reason black people fear these situations is because police often do get away with murder and when they know they can get away with it they are not going to be as fearful of the consequences because there are none. And they know that they can count on their fellow officers to protect them in the same way a gang of criminals does. And often in many of these cases they lie for each other and even plant evidence. It's hard to believe they would go so far to attack and maybe even kill a stranger but their capacity to do this was already inside them. And when they take that "us vs them" attitude it is amazing at what they can justify.

And people talk about training. But if you train a serial killer how to better protect themselves against their victims, you're simply making them a better serial killer. And why wouldn't a serial killer want to be a cop? It's the perfect job for them. They can kill people and have people on multiple levels of law enforcement protect them.

And many people think it's enough of an excuse to say Floyd was on drugs. However, I watched the testimony of his girlfriend. He wasn't on drugs because of some error in his moral character and therefore he was a "bad guy". This is one of the reasons black people do have a good reason to be afraid of the police. Because unless you're squeaky clean they can twist whatever they can find in your life to murder your name after they murder you. Just like many people Floyd and his girlfriend were on legal medication. But then they got hooked and often when the body gets used to a drug it becomes less and less effective. So what starts as a medical issues of pain management turns into something its hard to get help for. And because it is so demonized by the law people know that if they get caught with the very thing that's keeping them from torturous pain, will land them behind bars. And when that happens, it's not the drugs stealing their lives away. It's the law and law enforcement.

And if you look a certain way the law is more likely going to be enforced on you than someone else. And it raises the chance you may get executed because it plays a role in the calculus that no one (important) will miss you.

George Floyd was a real person. He was athletic and he would sometimes play basketball with neighborhood kids. I've done the same thing. And I'm not squeaky clean either. And the likelihood that anyone in Floyd's care manufactured a fake bill is extremely low. So it's like he was just as much a victim of forgery as the store he tried to give it to. None of this was anything to be killed over and from the beginning that's what George told them he was afraid of and vocalizing that fear didn't matter because it happened anyway. Telling them he wasn't that kind of person and that he wasn't resisting; nothing he said really mattered because he wasn't perfectly obedient with what they were trying to do. Because he didn't know what they were trying to do and he was terrified for his life; obviously for good reason.

And if he wasn't wrong and if his fear wasn't justified, then why is he gone now?

Unfortunately, I don't see Chauvin facing the punishment he ought to, nor do I see the other officers present on the scene facing the punishment they ought to. The focus of the public has been on Chauvin himself, but there were multiple officers present who participated in Floyd's death and, at best, did nothing to save the man. Even while people looking on urged the police to stop their barbarous actions, these cops did nothing. I'm not sure whether or not Chauvin will face any real punishment -- that's up to a jury to decide -- but in similar cases prior to this one many cops have gotten away with their murders scot-free. The whole situation is deeply troubling.

I've been in similar pins to what Floyd was subjected to (though not for nearly as long). It's certainly not comfortable, and if someone is under the influence of a drug or is otherwise in a condition where their health is already at risk it is certainly excessive. What's even more stunning is that Chauvin continued his pin even after it was clear that Floyd required medical attention, and even after others failed to find a pulse in Floyd. That was clearly excessive and completely uncalled for. Submitting a violent person is not excessively difficult; anyone with 6 months of jujitsu classes could subdue almost anyone alive, without causing major or lasting injury, without putting anyone at risk of death, and it doesn't require a crowd of 4+ police officers to do so either. You know what happens when a normal person (not a cop) puts someone in a strangle-hold after they've already passed out and their pulse has stopped? They're immediately kicked out of whatever gym or sport they're part of at the very least, and in most cases they're convicted as murderers, no questions asked. It doesn't matter if the person they strangled was high or not. Clear applications of excessive force are clearly excessive. We don't say "oh they were scared" or give them any other excuses.

The "us vs them" mentality is a major issue. In psychology and sociology, there is something called the minimal group paradigm: that even a minor difference between two groups (i.e. different clothing choices) decreases empathy between members of different groups and increases in-group favoritism. We see this clearly in the "blue lives matter" crowd. Put a bunch of people in costumes, hand them weapons, give them the power of life or death over others, have the public call them heroes, and you have done nothing other than created a special group which favors itself over all others. Their job literally involves being suspicious of everyone outside of their group. Even worse, it is a group which seems immune to punishment for their actions and to whom the rules do not seem to apply at all. With the research I've seen on in-group favoritism and lack of empathy for out-group members, this seems like a recipe for disaster.

Personally, I am a police abolitionist through-and-through. When protesters say "defund the police" I take it very seriously; I do not support a mere reallocation of funding, but a complete dissolution of policing entirely. Specialists trained in working with addicts, the mentally ill, and those in poverty are a necessity which we are gravely lacking. Police? Not so much. As you pointed out, it is a career that seems best suited for people who wish to murder. In my life I have yet to discover a single legitimate place for police, and I have yet to see a police officer perform a necessary action which could not be better performed by someone else. Home break-ins? Assaults? Robbery? Grand theft auto? Rape? Murder? Police are not magicians; they cannot possibly show up to a place where people are in danger fast enough to make a real difference, and in cases where hundreds of people are at risk (e.g. mass shootings and terrorist threats) I would think the national guard would be a more appropriate presence than cops. Best they can do in the vast majority of cases is fill out some paperwork or make use of the information-gathering tools which anyone could use, but which the state chooses to give to them specifically. It doesn't take a genius to gather fingerprints or run a DNA test when the relevant technology is made available to them, but police are the ones who have been handed easy access to that technology. From my experience, they most often steal from the poor for petty reasons with their ridiculous ticketing system and do little to nothing of benefit to anyone. I do not think that cops are "good guys" at all, and it truly does disgust me that these institutions exist anywhere in the world -- even moreso that these people are hailed as heroes.

I don't know enough about this trial to give an educated opinion.
Lots of police overreach issues are partly to blame on qualified immunity and how civil actions for deprivation of rights play out (including but not limited to Bivens remedies). There's a lot at the intersection of messed up and legal.

TheDude wrote: Submitting a violent person is not excessively difficult; anyone with 6 months of jujitsu classes could subdue almost anyone alive, without causing major or lasting injury.

Seems hyper-optimistic

TheDude wrote: Rape? Murder? Police are not magicians; they cannot possibly show up to a place where people are in danger fast enough to make a real difference...

Saying "if you're a victim in progress, sucks for you" seems horrible

TheDude wrote: and in cases where hundreds of people are at risk (e.g. mass shootings and terrorist threats) I would think the national guard would be a more appropriate presence than cops.

That seems to just incentivize the national guard being used for everything

TheDude wrote: Best they can do in the vast majority of cases is fill out some paperwork or make use of the information-gathering tools which anyone could use, but which the state chooses to give to them specifically. It doesn't take a genius to gather fingerprints or run a DNA test when the relevant technology is made available to them

When handling evidence with any level of complexity beyond taking a picture of something, the average person would be insufficient for the job. Evidence would be tossed out via voir dire so fast (chain of custody who?)

Rex wrote: Seems hyper-optimistic

I’ll stand by that statement. I wholeheartedly believe that anyone with a year of boxing experience would be able to win in a fight against 90% of the population based on reaction time alone, and jujitsu is better for submission. There have been numerous news stories of jujitsu practitioners stopping active crimes and being told by police not to do so.

Saying "if you're a victim in progress, sucks for you" seems horrible

There is a difference between is and ought. But let’s run a thought experiment. You’re walking down the street at 4am. The bars have closed and you’re going home. You can’t see anyone around. As you walk, someone comes out from the shadows. It’s a man with a knife. He demands you pull out your wallet and hand him all of your cash, and your credit cards. There are no police in sight. What happens? How do the police save you?

Let’s try a different thought experiment. A woman is alone in her apartment. She’s in bed. Suddenly, her door opens. A man she doesn’t know has picked the lock and is trying to rape her. He holds a gun to her head and says that if she screams she dies. What happens? How do the police save her?

That seems to just incentivize the national guard being used for everything

More than they’re used for currently. Most things? Not at all. Like I said, specialists who work with people experiencing specific problems could deal with the majority of issues.

When handling evidence with any level of complexity beyond taking a picture of something, the average person would be insufficient for the job. Evidence would be tossed out via voir dire so fast (chain of custody who?)

I completely disagree. I have a very low opinion of police training and general police intelligence. The average person would do fine; a trained chimpanzee could probably do just fine.

So the police officers nation wide arnt smarter than a chimpanzee?

Zero wrote: So the police officers nation wide arnt smarter than a chimpanzee?

By my estimation, not all of them!
But their overall intelligence isn’t the point, just the level of intelligence needed to complete their tasks. Many of which are unnecessary, dangerous, and detrimental to society as a whole.

TheDude wrote: I’ll stand by that statement. I wholeheartedly believe that anyone with a year of boxing experience would be able to win in a fight against 90% of the population based on reaction time alone, and jujitsu is better for submission. There have been numerous news stories of jujitsu practitioners stopping active crimes and being told by police not to do so.

Agree to disagree. That's anecdotal evidence and I remember a piece by NPR showed that training budget had no correlation to civil damages. Training cops in Jiu Jitsu is putting a band aid on a gaping accountability issue.

There is a difference between is and ought. But let’s run a thought experiment. You’re walking down the street at 4am. The bars have closed and you’re going home. You can’t see anyone around. As you walk, someone comes out from the shadows. It’s a man with a knife. He demands you pull out your wallet and hand him all of your cash, and your credit cards. There are no police in sight. What happens? How do the police save you?

You're making a comparison between the police and superheros, not the current model and your suggestion. Try the same thing without police (or Natl. Guard which is what I would imagine is the likely result). It's deterrence value: the averageresponse time in my county is ~15 minutes (for all calls not just violent ones), so someone mugging me has that much of a head start. Without law enforcement, there's no reason for the perp to not escalate the situation and I would equally have no recourse besides defending myself.

Let’s try a different thought experiment. A woman is alone in her apartment. She’s in bed. Suddenly, her door opens. A man she doesn’t know has picked the lock and is trying to rape her. He holds a gun to her head and says that if she screams she dies. What happens? How do the police save her?

Saying the police can't unrape a victim is tasteless and horrifying

More than they’re used for currently. Most things? Not at all. Like I said, specialists who work with people experiencing specific problems could deal with the majority of issues.

That's a sharp force continuum that would incentivize natl. guard to respond to all but the most peaceful calls. Joe therapist working for the county isn't going to go into a situation where he has a chance of being harmed so he'll call the natl. guard aggravating the current situation.

I completely disagree. I have a very low opinion of police training and general police intelligence. The average person would do fine; a trained chimpanzee could probably do just fine.

This is tangential and pejorative at best. You're conflating the stereotype you have in your mind of the type of person who is a police officer (which is a relevant but different discussion) and systemic demands. I'd appreciate it if you addressed what I said instead of trying to derail the discussion.

Rex wrote: Agree to disagree. That's anecdotal evidence and I remember a piece by NPR showed that training budget had no correlation to civil damages. Training cops in Jiu Jitsu is putting a band aid on a gaping accountability issue.

I support the complete dissolution of police, not increasing their budgets to include jujitsu training. And all evidence is anecdotal until there is enough of it. It’s simple logic though; a person’s body can only move in certain ways and submission holds exploit that fact. Even the world’s best fighters submit to easy submission holds all the time; watch any UFC. I sincerely doubt that the average person wouldn’t submit in the same way.

You're making a comparison between the police and superheros, not the current model and your suggestion. Try the same thing without police (or Natl. Guard which is what I would imagine is the likely result). It's deterrence value: the averageresponse time in my county is ~15 minutes (for all calls not just violent ones), so someone mugging me has that much of a head start. Without law enforcement, there's no reason for the perp to not escalate the situation and I would equally have no recourse besides defending myself.

When it comes to saving your own life, I’d expect you to defend yourself rather than calling the police and waiting 15 minutes. If someone wants to escalate, police won’t be there and can’t do a thing about it. So the only possible benefit to police is deterrence.
But do they really deter? Or is that just a popular falsehood? I think a lot of people assume that deterrence works, but I don’t think that’s the case. Here in the US we have a ton of prisoners. Millions of them. Countries where cops don’t carry guns have less than us, even adjusted for population. Countries where homosexuality is punished by death still have plenty of homosexuals. If deterrence worked, do you honestly think we would continuously be stacking prisons full of people? Or is that just a clear sign that deterrence doesn’t mean a thing?
Take marijuana legalization. At one point it’s punishable by years in prison. Then it’s not. If deterrence works, one would expect use of marijuana to skyrocket in areas where it’s made legal — but it doesn’t. It really doesn’t. Deterrence made no difference whatsoever.
And if deterrence doesn’t work? And the only justification for police is deterrence? Then there is no justification for police.
I’ll also add that claiming deterrence justifies the existence of police could easily be used to justify many things. Cops with military equipment? Justified by deterrence. Cops being allowed to ransack your house? Justified by deterrence. Armed military members every 15 feet down every road in the nation? Deterrence strategy, completely justified.
But deterrence doesn’t work and even if it did it wouldn’t justify the existence of an armed group of government thugs who shake you down for your money and have a license to kill you for not doing exactly as they say when they say it, people who if you aren’t completely subservient to can kill you on a whim. It just doesn’t justify it at all.

Saying the police can't unrape a victim is tasteless and horrifying

Not only can’t they do that, they can’t do anything. The average rapist certainly doesn’t get caught after a single act of rape. All the police can really do is force the poor victim to detail every bit of the experience. The point is that in any case where someone might need protection, the police offer no protection whatsoever. You may not like it, you might think it’s distasteful, but it’s the truth.

That's a sharp force continuum that would incentivize natl. guard to respond to all but the most peaceful calls. Joe therapist working for the county isn't going to go into a situation where he has a chance of being harmed so he'll call the natl. guard aggravating the current situation.

That’s purely anecdotal. Could just as easily say “Joe policeman working for the county isn’t going to go into a situation where he has a chance of being harmed”. Certainly it’s been the case before. Plenty of school shootings where a cop was on the scene and waited for backup while kids died.
I’m working in mental health. I know plenty of people in the field who would be willing to do the work. Happy, even. So, an anecdote for an anecdote.

This is tangential and pejorative at best. You're conflating the stereotype you have in your mind of the type of person who is a police officer (which is a relevant but different discussion) and systemic demands. I'd appreciate it if you addressed what I said instead of trying to derail the discussion.

That is the address. You claim the average person “would be insufficient for the job”. I claim that not only is the average person sufficient, but even extremely unintelligent people are sufficient, and even trained animals are sufficient. You could teach all of the necessary steps to kids in elementary school. It’s not difficult and police are not special, they are not smarter than the average person or more capable than the average person; they are indeed less smart and less capable than the average person. Luckily, no aspect of their job requires anything for which even an unintelligent person “would be insufficient for the job”. That’s my view.

NOTE: If you aren't convinced, check out this article. I found it quite illuminating:
https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759

Let’s get this thread back on topic or it will be locked. The thread was about a trial for a police officer. It’s not about raping women in the middle of the night or the national guard acting as police.