First Are you saying that it's necessary to be more brutal with gang related violence? I don't think that is actually true. Why do you think so?
On the contrary our police brutality complaints are not in any way shape or form limited to gang violence.
Policing simply needs to be better, and the non direct costs of it are much higher than any lawsuit.
You can argue that, but many times police are not responding to violent crimes. In many cities, police officers harass residents when they see a group of black kids walking down the street. That is not responding to violent crime.When you're responding to higher levels of violent crime, things tend to have a way of escalating in ways that they wouldn't if someone spend most of their day writing traffic tickets, or who work in a very safe area where they've never even had to draw their firearm in the line of duty.
...and doing it routinely impacts the psyche of the officers involved.
I don't think anyone is saying that many officers do that. There are police officers that join the force to be bullies. The problem is little is done when these bullies are found. In DOJ report after DOJ report, police brutality cases were either not investigated or if the complaint was sustained, little to nothing was done. That's the problem in a nutshell, bad police stick and ruin community relations.I don't think many officers are signing up for that profession with the intent of "wanting to brutalize people".
Most police officers are not going into combat zones, although some of them treat communities of color like combatants.In many ways it's similar to the armed services. A person with a desk job in the Army isn't going to be as prone to develop certain instabilities and PTSD as someone who's in an active combat role.
When you're responding to higher levels of violent crime, things tend to have a way of escalating in ways that they wouldn't if someone spend most of their day writing traffic tickets, or who work in a very safe area where they've never even had to draw their firearm in the line of duty.
...and doing it routinely impacts the psyche of the officers involved.
I don't think many officers are signing up for that profession with the intent of "wanting to brutalize people".
In many ways it's similar to the armed services. A person with a desk job in the Army isn't going to be as prone to develop certain instabilities and PTSD as someone who's in an active combat role.
Sigh ...The Constitution deals with the government respecting individual rights, what on earth are you talking about? And for that matter, what law are you quoting that an arrest warrant makes someone a violent criminal?
Where is this stated in the law? A warrant for an arrest does not mean you are a violent criminal. Where is violent criminal even defined? No one needs to reread anything, it's more like you're arguing something that is just not true.Sigh ...
When a person commits multiple violent crimes, is arrested for those crimes, is convicted for those crimes, is sent to prison for those crimes, serves 1/3 of their sentence and is released on parole ... are they a violent criminal under the law? In general no. They are probably still “violent” because a leopard does not change its spots, but until and unless they break the law and suffer due process, that violence does not make them a criminal.
If that exact same individual fails to maintain contact with his parole officer and does not attend the court ordered anger management classes that were a condition of his parole, so the court revokes his parole and issues a ... wait for it ... warrant for his arrest, is he now a violent criminal? In general, yes.
QED.
The police did not make him a violent criminal, but the arrest warrant made him a violent criminal being sought by the police.
(You should just reread what I wrote about the constitution several times, slowly, and you may figure it out on your own.)
Wasn’t he already in handcuffs at this juncture?Multiple police officers attempted to place a combative Floyd into a police car before he ran and was tackled to the ground.
It's arguing something that never happened to justify a murder.Wasn’t he already in handcuffs at this juncture?
Ever try to run in handcuffs?
With a lot of “wild black man with the strength of ten” subtlety laced in, a nice touch!It's arguing something that never happened to justify a murder.
No.Wasn’t he already in handcuffs at this juncture?
Ever try to run in handcuffs?
You are conflating two points.Where is this stated in the law? A warrant for an arrest does not mean you are a violent criminal. Where is violent criminal even defined? No one needs to reread anything, it's more like you're arguing something that is just not true.
Reread your TOPIC HEADING ... this is supposed to be about MONEY and JUSTICE and not Mr Floyd. I am just answering the questions asked. If you want ON TOPIC answers, then ask ON-TOPIC questions.It's arguing something that never happened to justify a murder.
What law and statute are you quoting when you refer to someone as a violent criminal. You keep repeating these words that are an opinion, yet have no citations. Where in the law does it state that an arrest warrant makes someone a violent criminal?You are conflating two points.
1. Committing a violent crime makes you a violent criminal, and the COURT, not the POLICE issue the warrant for arrest that determines when the police are attempting to arrest a "violent criminal". The example that I gave to illustrate the point (which you conveniently ignored) was a man convicted of a violent crime ... making him a violent criminal ... released on parole ... making him a violent non-criminal ... having a warrant issued for parole violation ... placing the police in the position of searching for a "violent criminal".
2. The issue with the constitution was unrelated and addressed in an earlier post that you need to reread to understand because I am tired of repeating things to someone that is deliberately not listening to what I am actually saying and just hears what they have predetermined to hear.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
1. Since when is a "multiple times the lethal dose" a minuscule amount?Tell us, @atpollard, did the minuscule amount of drugs in his system contribute to this super-human strength or was it just “his nature”?
No one was running away and no one overdosed on drugs in the situation you're talking about. It was a daytime murder, and his killer, a violent police officer, was convicted for committing that murder.No.
I have also never taken a lethal dose of drugs.
I have never refused to get in a police car.
I have never kicked and wrestled with 3 police officers to prevent them from forcing me into the police car.
That probably explains why I have never been pinned face down on the street.
You don't care, yet you seem to spend a lot of time on this thread trying to justify police violence, including a daytime murder.1. Since when is a "multiple times the lethal dose" a minuscule amount?
2. It is the "nature" of sinners to sin. Thieves steal. Liars lie. Violent men fight. I have no idea what Mr Floyd's nature was ... nor do I care. That was a matter for a jury to hear the facts on and they did. I do not live in Minneapolis so neither the local criminals nor the local police are my concern. I cannot influence either.
from wikipedia (just for you, since you don't know what a "violent criminal" is):What law and statute are you quoting when you refer to someone as a violent criminal. You keep repeating these words that are an opinion, yet have no citations. Where in the law does it state that an arrest warrant makes someone a violent criminal?
Reread the autopsy toxicology report.No one was running away and no one overdosed on drugs in the situation you're talking about. It was a daytime murder, and his killer, a violent police officer, was convicted for committing that murder.
I justify nothing.You don't care, yet you seem to spend a lot of time on this thread trying to justify police violence, including a daytime murder.
I noticed the lack of links, but what you've posted here is what defines a violent crime, not what you stated before, an arrest warrant defines someone as a violent criminal. You used this logic to justify police violence, but have not shown where in law an arrest warrant redefines a person as a violent criminal.from wikipedia (just for you, since you don't know what a "violent criminal" is):
There are two main crime databases maintained by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ): the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report (UCR). Non-fatal violence is reported in the NCVS, which measures rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault reported by households surveyed by the U.S. Census Bureau. The UCR tracks similar non-fatal violence, plus murder and non-negligent manslaughter recorded by law enforcement.A "violent criminal" is a criminal that has committed a "violent crime".