Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

Agreed. But come on, this isn't what the trial was about. It's about what happened after that. The trial was about Chauvin's knee. And my thinking is that there is absolutely no proof that Chauvin applied the knee for an excessive period because Floyd was black.

Like I said, show me proof that Chauvin 'stuck the knee' into Floyd because he was black and I'll retract my statement.



The defence can cite what they like, that's their job. They mention everything to try and muddy the waters. That still doesn't prove that Chauvin committed manslaugher/murder etc. on Floyd because he was black. Chauvin might well be a racist, I don't know, but there's absolutely no proof of that in the video or in the trial.

Thank you. I can't.

That's a much more sensible argument to make and stand on than 'no evidence of race anywhere to do with anything in this' etc.

That said, I don't accept the defense explanations for why he did any of that. The best I can argue is that by using the superhuman strength defense either he, his lawyers or the police union etc. is using a defense rooted in implicit bias. If the defense is arguing fear of Floyd's superhuman strength then I argue it is admission to a racial bias, even if we accept the argument that he held the racial bias without any sort of racist malice. My argument cannot be made beyond your reasonable doubts, so there we are at the discussion juncture I think.

walshb

Had Floyd not resisted arrest and complied with the cops he would still be alive, because the kneeling incident would never have happened, and more importantly, the racist angle being constantly injected here would not be needed...

Just an observation..

Before anyone jumps in. I am not saying his death was his fault..

George’s color was not a factor in what happened to him.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Well.. probably some time before the first black president, no?..

The black president who faced allegations that he was born in Africa?

Faugheen

walshb wrote: »

Had Floyd not resisted arrest and complied with the cops he would still be alive, because the kneeling incident would never have happened, and more importantly, the racist angle being constantly injected here would not be needed...

Just an observation..

Before anyone jumps in. I am not saying his death was his fault..

George’s color was not a factor in what happened to him.

Yes you are.

walshb

Faugheen wrote: »

Yes you are.

My point completely missed by you..

And I am correct. Unless you are trying to say the kneeling incident would still have occurred?

Overheal

Faugheen wrote: »

The black president who faced allegations that he was born in Africa?

And burned in effigy. I mean, every President is eventually it seems, but you'd think if racism had really been as dead as those people burning the effigies argued at the time, they definitely would have been at least the tiniest bit woke enough to have not burned him in effigy, for those woke/racism-is-dead reasons. Sooooo....

Billy Mays

Faugheen wrote: »

The black president who faced allegations that he was born in Africa?

By none other than the very next president no less 🤔

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

The black president who faced allegations that he was born in Africa?

Well, like, if the entire system is set up to keep the black man down, you'd think it would have some mechanism in place to ensure one of them doesn't become the most powerful man in the world..

It's just so simplistic..Are you not capable of a level of abstraction above "well they were a different colour"?..

Overheal

walshb wrote: »

My point completely missed by you..

And I am correct. Unless you are trying to say the kneeling incident would still have occurred?

I mean your point is if I didn't plug my phone in today I wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's just not an especially appreciable observation to say had the situation not happened we wouldn't be talking about the situation or how it happened.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, like, if the entire system is set up to keep the black man down, you'd think it would have some mechanism in place to ensure one of them doesn't become the most powerful man in the world..

It's just so simplistic..Are you not capable of a level of abstraction above "well they were a different colour"?..

Not is, was. And all of that significantly informs how policing is done today.

Though, to be fair I can't really say there isn't still systemic instituting of racism today evidenced by the Trump movement, contextualized with how many of those Trump diehards are cops, and lawmakers alike. I cannot specifically tell you there isn't systemic racism being built into law or law enforcement, because I see evidence of it happening.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, like, if the entire system is set up to keep the black man down, you'd think it would have some mechanism in place to ensure one of them doesn't become the most powerful man in the world..

It's just so simplistic..Are you not capable of a level of abstraction above "well they were a different colour"?..

And if there wasn't systemic, deep-rooted racism in the US then the black man isn't going to be accused of being born in Kenya, is he?

Just because the black man got to the top job doesn't mean the racism stopped. Anyone who even tries to suggest otherwise is either deluded or stupid.

walshb

Overheal wrote: »

I mean your point is if I didn't plug my phone in today I wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's just not an especially appreciable observation to say had the situation not happened we wouldn't be talking about the situation or how it happened.

No. I am debating this narrative that people want to claim that Chauvin did what he did because George was black. That he went OTT restraining him because he was black..

George’s resisting arrest led to the kneeling incident. That is fact.

Now, Chauvin still went OTT. I get this. But there was no racism in his restraining him.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

And if there wasn't systemic, deep-rooted racism in the US then the black man isn't going to be accused of being born in Kenya, is he?

Just because the black man got to the top job doesn't mean the racism stopped. Anyone who even tries to suggest otherwise is either deluded or stupid.

It looks to me like it got considerably worse under him..

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, like, if the entire system is set up to keep the black man down, you'd think it would have some mechanism in place to ensure one of them doesn't become the most powerful man in the world..

It's just so simplistic..Are you not capable of a level of abstraction above "well they were a different colour"?..

Well the system has been in place for a very long time, back when the black man was in chains working the cotton fields and in no danger of being able to run for president let alone vote for one. Fast forward to a time where they can run and vote amd hey ho the system in place always allowed this but just never thought it would happen.

But guess what, systemic racism can still exist due to all the other intricacies of society.

OMM 0000

walshb wrote: »

Had Floyd not resisted arrest and complied with the cops he would still be alive, because the kneeling incident would never have happened, and more importantly, the racist angle being constantly injected here would not be needed...

Just an observation..

Before anyone jumps in. I am not saying his death was his fault..

George’s color was not a factor in what happened to him.

You need to understand, the sort of people defending Floyd are actual racists.

They will tell you they 100% support Affirmative Action.

What is Affirmative Action? Every black person, regardless of family wealth, doesn't need the same exam scores as whites and Asians as they're not smart enough to compete on a level playing field.

It's literally woke people admitting they think blacks are less intelligent than everyone else.

What's amazing is these people are so dumb they think this makes them anti-racist.

Foxtrol

BattleCorp wrote: »

Once again, proof?

Again, there is no 'proof' that the majority of the awful RUC interactions had with the Catholic/Republican communities in the north during the troubles had anything to do with their religion or their republicanism.

I don't see many making your type of pedantic argument though, it is obvious to the dogs on the street the two tier policing that was going on - just like it is in the US today.

If there was proof that Chauvin knelt on Floyd because he was a racist, don't you think the prosecution might have brought it up as an aggravating factor?

Why potentially muddy and potentially risk losing a case when it was such a slam dunk? They would be idiots.

Going forward, will every interaction between a white police officer and a black person be classed as racist? Serious question.

No one is claiming that, however treating each of these terrible police incidents in a vacuum where there has to be 'proof' of race being a factor seems naïve, at best.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

It looks to me like it got considerably worse under him..

Which would completely debunk what you said just a few minutes ago that systemic racism stopped when the US got a black president.

Well done. You just proved you're a bad faith sh*tposter with minimal effort.

Overheal

walshb wrote: »

George’s resisting arrest led to the kneeling incident. That is fact.

Now, Chauvin still went OTT. I get this. But there was no racism in his restraining him.

A lot of things led to the kneeling incident. George Floyd was one of the persons involved in the kneeling incident. At least a dozen people were, the 911 operator, the shop owner, bystanders, shop customers, police.

This is about the Trial of Derek Chauvin.

No. I am debating this narrative that people want to claim that Chauvin did what he did because George was black. That he went OTT restraining him because he was black..

Yet the argument can be made that's exactly what the defense contextually admits to, when it says that he did what he did not because George was black but because of his excited delirium and superhuman strength etc. which reveal implicit biases.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Which would completely debunk what you said just a few minutes ago that systemic racism stopped when the US got a black president.

Well done. You just proved you're a bad faith sh*tposter with minimal effort.

Well..west Indian immigrants don't have a problem with it.. Asian Americans don't..

The black community's problems are cultural..

drkpower

Overheal wrote: »

With due respect that's to my reckoning just yet another very narrow, gilded goalpost. Or at the very least you seem to be arguing against something nobody is saying here: George Floyd had the police called to the scene by the store owner. The interaction happened, quite literally because of a 911 call, not because a cop looked at a brown person and pulled them over or whatever. This isn't in dispute. Yet you seem to be framing it as a way to exclude the evidence that the defense cited things like "superhuman strength" and "excited delirium" which have racial context to them, and therefore bring the element of race to this case - which has been denied through soap box vociferously here today yet which is demonstrably true.

Ah here, ‘excited delirium’ is a known medical condition, and one which the treating medics said was in their differential diagnosis. Being male, young, overweight and African American are known risk factors.

Was chauvin fatt-ist too?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It looks to me like it got considerably worse under him..

Thing is, that's not true. It's gotten noticed more, more than anything. A cop oversteps now and it's caught on video which is a substantial aspect to it. Journalists have been highlighting it for decades.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Well..west Indian immigrants don't have a problem with it.. Asian Americans don't..

The black community's problems are cultural..

The fact you just said all of this shows you are making it all up as it goes along.

PokeHerKing

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You need to understand, the sort of people defending Floyd are actual racists.

They will tell you they 100% support Affirmative Action.

What is Affirmative Action? Every black person, regardless of family wealth, doesn't need the same exam scores as whites and Asians as they're not smart enough to compete on a level playing field.

It's literally woke people admitting they think blacks are less intelligent than everyone else.

What's amazing is these people are so dumb they think this makes them anti-racist.

You can acknowledge the existence of racism without believing any of the above $hite. Denying racism or systemic racism would be like denying all other types of prejudices, like saying fat kids or short kids dont get picked on in school.

It exists of course it exists. Americas racism is systemic due to their very recent history of slavery and oppression of black people. You don't need to be a woke hippie to acknowledge that you simp.

CalisGirl

Overheal wrote: »

Thank you. I can't.

That's a much more sensible argument to make and stand on than 'no evidence of race anywhere to do with anything in this' etc.

That said, I don't accept the defense explanations for why he did any of that. The best I can argue is that by using the superhuman strength defense either he, his lawyers or the police union etc. is using a defense rooted in implicit bias. If the defense is arguing fear of Floyd's superhuman strength then I argue it is admission to a racial bias, even if we accept the argument that he held the racial bias without any sort of racist malice. My argument cannot be made beyond your reasonable doubts, so there we are at the discussion juncture I think.

To be fair, I don't think the "superhuman strength" argument was in any way related to his being Black. The superhuman strength seems connected to him having drugs in his system. Drugs can impair a persons perception of the damage they are doing to themselves and others, so they can appear to have super human strength while high. Simply because they care less about the physical consequence of their actions and so won't hold back due to increased pain resistance, adrenaline, etc.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

The fact you just said all of this shows you are making it all up as it goes along.

Can you name a country that's less racist than the states like?..

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Well..west Indian immigrants don't have a problem with it.. Asian Americans don't..

You asked them?

The black community's problems are cultural..

Yes, our Police State culture.

OMM 0000

PokeHerKing wrote: »

You can acknowledge the existence of racism without believing any of the above $hite. Denying racism or systemic racism would be like denying all other types of prejudices, like saying fat kids or short kids dont get picked on in school.

It exists of course it exists. Americas racism is systemic due to their very recent history of slavery and oppression of black people. You don't need to be a woke hippie to acknowledge that you simp.

There is no systemic racism. We know this because Obama (black) was president, Harris (black) is vice-president, Oprah (black) is the highest rated show on TV, Johnson (black) is the highest paid actor, James (black) is the highest paid athlete, and so on.

Blacks do just fine if they avoid crime.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

You asked them?

There have been studies done..

Asian Americans have actually recently been on the recieving end of actual systemic racism because they were doing too well..

Yellow_Fern

Overheal wrote: »

Thank you. I can't.

That's a much more sensible argument to make and stand on than 'no evidence of race anywhere to do with anything in this' etc.

That said, I don't accept the defense explanations for why he did any of that. The best I can argue is that by using the superhuman strength defense either he, his lawyers or the police union etc. is using a defense rooted in implicit bias. If the defense is arguing fear of Floyd's superhuman strength then I argue it is admission to a racial bias, even if we accept the argument that he held the racial bias without any sort of racist malice. My argument cannot be made beyond your reasonable doubts, so there we are at the discussion juncture I think.

This rhetoric is classic wokist extremism. Step 1 identify something extremely obvious/ commonplace in society like saying a 110kg well built man has has superhuman strength, step 2 find examples from generations of ago of racists using the term, and step 3 label anyone using the term today as somehow ideological related to obscure racists from generations ago who once used it. Other famous examples of wokists doing this include the claim that policing originated from slave catchers and the claim that accounting, Excel and even capitalism emerged from slavery book keeping

Might go a bit over yer head though..

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Well..west Indian immigrants don't have a problem with it.. Asian Americans don't..

The black community's problems are cultural..

I know 'look at Asian Americans' is a go to deflection talking point but it completely ignores the high levels of poverty amongst that group.

https://twitter.com/ZachandMattShow/status/1351081231002333184?s=20

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

There have been studies done..

Asian Americans have actually recently been on the recieving end of actual systemic racism because they were doing too well..

Ok. I see.

I don't think you are familiar with Black American History insomuch as you've missed a glaring historical atrocity without so much as a blink when saying the above...

So, I'm going to leave this here, because knowledge of the incident is extremely contextual to what you just said and I hope you take a second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ItsPBTFO0

Overheal

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

This rhetoric is classic wokist extremism. Step 1 identify something extremely obvious/ commonplace in society like saying a 110kg well built man has has superhuman strength, step 2 find examples from generations of ago of racists using the term, and step 3 label anyone using the term today as somehow ideological related to obscure racists from generations ago who once used it. Other famous examples of wokists doing this include the claim that policing originated from slave catchers and the claim that accounting, Excel and even capitalism emerged from slavery book keeping

The man was on trial for murder. And his attorneys were not invoking "superhuman" as a colorful euphemism. They were defending their client for murder charges.

Overheal

walshb wrote: »

Can you show me any rule/law in place now in America that legally discriminates against black people?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-republicans.html

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-republicans.html

Do you think black people are too stupid to get an ID?

Foxtrol

walshb wrote: »

Can you show me any rule/law in place now in America that legally discriminates against black people?

Cash bail laws

walshb

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-republicans.html

Can’t open that

Does this target black people, or people?

walshb

Foxtrol wrote: »

Cash bail laws

What about them?

Do they target certain colors?

Or do they apply to humans? People?

Baggly

Faugheen wrote: »

Which would completely debunk what you said just a few minutes ago that systemic racism stopped when the US got a black president.

Well done. You just proved you're a bad faith sh*tposter with minimal effort.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well..west Indian immigrants don't have a problem with it.. Asian Americans don't..

The black community's problems are cultural..

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think black people are too stupid to get an ID?

Mod

Both of you can stop posting in this thread. Thanks

Foxtrol

walshb wrote: »

What about them?

Do they target certain colors?

Or do they apply to humans? People?

They legally discriminates against the black community - much higher levels of poverty due to historic racism which means a higher % cannot afford bail when they are arrested and for many the choice between admitting to a crime they didn't commit or spending months in jail until their case is heard.

Baggly

PokeHerKing wrote: »

You can acknowledge the existence of racism without believing any of the above $hite. Denying racism or systemic racism would be like denying all other types of prejudices, like saying fat kids or short kids dont get picked on in school.

It exists of course it exists. Americas racism is systemic due to their very recent history of slavery and oppression of black people. You don't need to be a woke hippie to acknowledge that you simp.

Mod

Dont post here again.

mcmoustache

walshb wrote: »

Can’t open that

Does this target black people, or people?

It targets people of all races who happen to do the things that black people do. Banning blacks is illegal and this is a workaround.

Overheal

walshb wrote: »

Can’t open that

SB 202. Is law as of the other week.

Does this target black people, or people?

Yes.

walshb

Overheal wrote: »

SB 202. Is law as of the other week.



Yes.

Does this law specifically target non whites?

Yes or no, and if so, can you point out where..

Where it defines color...is there any text in the law that discriminates based on color?

walshb

mcmoustache wrote: »

It targets people of all races who happen to do the things that black people do. Banning blacks is illegal and this is a workaround.

I see. So it targets people. Not colors.

That’s all I need to know..

Foxtrol

walshb wrote: »

I see. So it targets people. Not colors.

That’s all I need to know..

You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between overtly racist and systematically racist

walshb

Foxtrol wrote: »

You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between overtly racist and systematically racist

No idea what you are on about as regards my specific point..

Simple: anyone, please show me a single law in the U.S. today that is racist? That targets colors.

Just one..

If you can’t, fine. But quit the nonsense trying to find racism/color in these laws when it is not there.

Fandymo

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Look at the killing of Daniel Shaver, killed on his knees in his hotel room, begging not to be shot. The police were there as he was seen walking by his hotel room with a pellet gun. He was shot five times as he was seen to lowing one hand towards his waist, which it is believed he did as his briefs were falling off. He was drunk so struggled to comply with police instructions. But he was white so the media buried the case. Vastly worse case than the killing of George Floyd and he wasn't convicted a criminal like GF. But no protests. No outrage. No one cares.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42277309

Tony Timpa was a lot more like GF’s death. Although he’d called the police himself because he was having panic attacks.

Foxtrol

walshb wrote: »

No idea what you are on about as regards my specific point..

Simple: anyone, please show me a single law in the U.S. today that is racist? That targets colors.

Just one..

If you can’t, fine. But quit the nonsense trying to find racism/color in these laws when it is not there.

You just again proved my point.

Foxtrol wrote: »

You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between overtly racist and systematically racist

You're asking again and again for overtly race based laws when no one is claiming this.

What posters have been talking about are systematically racist laws and you've been given at least two examples - voter id and cash bail.

I'm not sure if you're purposefully being ignorant of the difference but google is your friend to explain it.

Fandymo

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Why are so many black people shot unarmed by police then in comparison to white people??

In the USA, Black people are more likely to be involved in violent crimes in comparison to white people. These stats have been posted multiple times on multiple threads on Boards.