Looters ransack Target store

[IceJad]

Material things can be replaced but lives cannot. Furthermore people have set things on fire over sports so is this really all that outrageous?

Yes. It is very outrageous. If every sentiment can only be expressed with torching something then why care about life lost? Because a burning building or vehicle can't kill people?

 

[agapelove]

And I'd like to know exactly what happened. It certainly wasn't correct police procedure, and so the policemen losing their jobs was obviously justified.

But was it more than that? Was George Floyd on drugs, as has been claimed? If so, which drugs? Was this an unfortunate outcome after a lengthy struggle to restrain him, or was it a crime? What's the "other evidence" that the Hennepin County Attorney was talking about? What was the sequence of events that took place before the video that everybody has seen? Did George Floyd actually resist arrest at all?

Please STOP trying to justify George Floyd's MURDER.

It SHOULD NOT MATTER whether or not he was on drugs, what kind of drugs, how long it took to restrain him, if he resisted ETC ETC ETC. Was that 9 MINUTE video of George pleading for his life while a grown man kneeled on his neck not enough evidence to convince you this was a HOMICIDE.. in BROAD DAYLIGHT? You should be OUTRAGED not questioning whether or not George Floyd deserved to die.

 

[agapelove]

Yes. It is very outrageous. If every sentiment can only be expressed with torching something then why care about life lost? Because a burning building or vehicle can't kill people?

You have to recognize the amount of PAIN that has built up in their community to willingly burn their own city down. Tell me how many more officers need to be acquitted and how many more lives need to be lost before their cries are heard and addressed? If a building was not on fire right now how many people would not know his name?

 

[camille70]

Our president thinks it's a good idea to have the national guard fire upon civilians.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

 

[IceJad]

You have to recognize the amount of PAIN that has built up in their community to willingly burn their own city down. Tell me how many more officers need to be acquitted and how many more lives need to be lost before their cries are heard and addressed? If a building was not on fire right now how many people would not know his name?

So you justify putting more lives in danger so you can highlight an issue? You mean the owner of such destruction have no rights and have to sit idly by as people burn his property down?

If that's the justification why pretend you want justice? Just bring out a gun and start shooting at the police station until all the polices are dead.

Why call for justice?

 

[IceJad]

You have to recognize the amount of PAIN that has built up in their community to willingly burn their own city down. Tell me how many more officers need to be acquitted and how many more lives need to be lost before their cries are heard and addressed? If a building was not on fire right now how many people would not know his name?

An eye for an eye makes everyone blind. Because you're gouging out the eye of the innocent and starting a new cycle.

 

[Radagast]

Please STOP trying to justify George Floyd's MURDER.

Alleged murder. Like I said, I want to know what actually happened.

It SHOULD NOT MATTER whether or not he was on drugs, what kind of drugs, how long it took to restrain him

Of course it matters. Certain drugs make people particularly violent, and that means arresting law enforcement officers are justified in using more force.

Was that 9 MINUTE video of George pleading for his life while a grown man kneeled on his neck not enough evidence to convince you this was a HOMICIDE.

Restraint using a knee on the neck is a standard police procedure. Many police departments ban it because it's very dangerous, but Minneapolis does not (maybe they should): The move used to restrain George Floyd isn't encouraged by most police. Here's why - CNN

So it comes down to: did the police have a valid reason to apply this form of restraint to George Floyd, or was it unjustified violence against him?

If they did have a valid reason, was it done competently? I'm not qualified to judge that, and the video doesn't offer a very clear view anyway, but the outcome certainly suggests that it wasn't.

in BROAD DAYLIGHT?

I'm not sure what the daylight has to do with it.

You should be OUTRAGED not questioning whether or not George Floyd deserved to die.

Of course George Floyd didn't deserve to die. But was it murder, or merely incompetent policing? If it was murder, then obviously charges need to be brought. If it was incompetent policing, then (as well as firing the officers involved) the Minneapolis police department needs to improve their training and review the use of this particular form of restraint.

 

[Zoness]

Noooo not corporate assets! Whatever will they do!

 

[agapelove]

So you justify putting more lives in danger so you can highlight an issue? You mean the owner of such destruction have no rights and have to sit idly by as people burn his property down?

If that's the justification why pretend you want justice? Just bring out a gun and start shooting at the police station until all the polices are dead.

Why call for justice?

What lives are in danger? Certainly not Derek Chauvin's who currently has an entire platoon outside his home. I'm so sorry that the CEO of Target and T-Mobile have to deal with this minor inconvenience while Floyd's family has to deal with the inconvenience of LOSING THEIR LOVED ONE.

Tell me what is your idea of ensuring George Floyd gets justice? Because peaceful protesting has gotten about every officer acquitted so far.

 

[Radagast]

Noooo not corporate assets! Whatever will they do!

Some of those "assets" are small businesses; the owners will almost certainly go bankrupt. Some of those "assets" are people's homes.

I'm not as happy as you are about those "assets" going up in flames.

Where the "assets" are indeed "corporate," the losses will ultimately be borne by consumers, especially in those areas where businesses were burnt down.

And arson of "corporate" buildings is still a very serious felony.

 

[Radagast]

Tell me what is your idea of ensuring George Floyd gets justice?

"Justice" doesn't mean that you get the outcome you want. Justice means that there's an investigation (which is in fact taking place) and that people guilty of crimes get the punishment appropriate to those crimes.

 

[agapelove]

Alleged murder. Like I said, I want to know what actually happened.

Murder. Over an alleged forged check. That is what happened.

Of course it matters. Certain drugs make people particularly violent, and that means arresting law enforcement officers are justified in using more force.

Did it look like he was violent to you?

Restraint using a knee on the neck is a standard police procedure. Many police departments ban it because it's very dangerous, but Minneapolis does not (maybe they should): The move used to restrain George Floyd isn't encouraged by most police. Here's why - CNN

For all I'm concerned murdering unarmed black men is also standard police procedure.

So it comes down to: did the police have a valid reason to apply this form of restraint to George Floyd, or was it unjustified violence against him?

What reason is valid enough to have him kneel on a man's neck for 9 minutes?

If they did have a valid reason, was it done competently? I'm not qualified to judge that, and the video doesn't offer a very clear view anyway, but the outcome certainly suggests that it wasn't.

They had neither a valid reason or competence.

I'm not sure what the daylight has to do with it.

When a police officer has the power to lynch a black man with dozens watching and recording and some even screaming at him to stop and he walks away as a free man that is an issue, sir.

Of course George Floyd didn't deserve to die. But was it murder, or merely incompetent policing? If it was murder, then obviously charges need to be brought. If it was incompetent policing, then (as well as firing the officers involved) the Minneapolis police department needs to improve their training and review the use of this particular form of restraint.

When the result of incompetent policing is a dead person then it's called homicide.

 

[IceJad]

What lives are in danger? Certainly not Derek Chauvin's who currently has an entire platoon outside his home. I'm so sorry that the CEO of Target and T-Mobile have to deal with this minor inconvenience while Floyd's family has to deal with the inconvenience of LOSING THEIR LOVED ONE.

Tell me what is your idea of ensuring George Floyd gets justice? Because peaceful protesting has gotten about every officer acquitted so far.

Just because there is no live lost now in a torching doesn't justify anything. If an attempted murder failed should the courts say it's not murder?

You only look at the CEO and rich individuals and say it's a minor loss. What about the employees that depend on Target to get by? Or the entire chain supply that Target sustain. What about the regular people who's livelihood got disrupted at a time where lay off are rampant?

Are you going to feed and shelter them? If yes then go ahead start torching more places of business. Then take up the responsibility to care for them.

If it was your family's place of business and suddenly you find yourself out of income to sustain your family will you sing the same tune?

You have a narrow understanding of what justice and fairness are.

 

[Radagast]

Murder.

I see that you don't need things like evidence, courts, or juries to reach a decision.

Did it look like he was violent to you?

Not after he was restrained, no. But was he violent before he was restrained? That's what I'd like to know.

When the result of incompetent policing is a dead person then it's called homicide.

In Minnesota, the policemen would be guilty of murder in the first degree if they "caused the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another."

They would be guilty of murder in the second degree if they "caused the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation."

They would be guilty of murder in the third degree if they "without intent to effect the death of any person, caused the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."

I don't see how a policeman, in the course of his duties, applying a restraint technique valid in the state of Minnesota, could successfully be prosecuted under any of those charges.

On the other hand, police departments across the US have made clear that any policeman doing what was shown in the video would not retain his job -- because, at the very least, (1) a very dangerous form of restraint was used, and (2) the police involved did not adequately monitor Floyd's breathing (whether or not the knee on his neck contributed, Floyd was at risk of positional asphyxia from being restrained in a prone position).

 

[agapelove]

Just because there is no live lost now in a torching doesn't justify anything. If an attempted murder failed should the courts say it's not murder?

In case you forgot sir a life WAS lost. You are more concerned about protesters committing "attempted murder" while a cop sits comfortably in his home after ACTUALLY murdering a man.

You only look at the CEO and rich individuals and say it's a minor loss. What about the employees that depend on Target to get by? Or the entire chain supply that Target sustain. What about the regular people who's livelihood got disrupted at a time where lay off are rampant?

These are all minor losses compared to a life.

Are you going to feed and shelter them? If yes then go ahead start torching more places of business. Then take up the responsibility to care for them.
If it was your family's place of business and suddenly you find yourself out of income to sustain your family will you sing the same tune?

A broken window and graffiti is something that can happen ANY TIME. I'm sure they understand, given the circumstances. I would.

You have a narrow understanding of what justice and fairness are.

Says the man pointing fingers at the WRONG CROWD.

 

[agapelove]

I see that you don't need things like evidence, courts, or juries to reach a decision.

No. I literally watched the man die.

Not after he was restrained, no. But was he violent before he was restrained? That's what I'd like to know.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/27/video-does-not-appear-to-show-george-floyd-resisting-arrest/

In Minnesota, the policemen would be guilty of murder in the first degree if they "caused the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another."

They would be guilty of murder in the second degree if they "caused the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation."

They would be guilty of murder in the third degree if they "without intent to effect the death of any person, caused the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."

I don't see how a policeman, in the course of his duties, applying a restraint technique valid in the state of Minnesota, could successfully be prosecuted under any of those charges.

On the other hand, police departments across the US have made clear that any policeman doing what was shown in the video would not retain his job -- because, at the very least, (1) a very dangerous form of restraint was used, and (2) the police involved did not adequately monitor Floyd's breathing.

You do not believe the officer perpetrated any "eminently dangerous acts" by applying a highly controversial restraint technique? You do not believe the officer acted "without regard for human life" when George Floyd begged for his life?

 

[Radagast]

https://nypost.com/2020/05/27/video-does-not-appear-to-show-george-floyd-resisting-arrest/

That is certainly extremely important evidence. I would like to see the video footage mentioned there.

You do not believe the officer perpetrated any "eminently dangerous acts" by applying a highly controversial restraint technique?

I'm pretty sure that the wording in the Minnesota Statutes excludes actions that the police are authorised to perform.

If they're authorised to perform dangerous and controversial techniques, the blame lies with the police department.

You do not believe the officer acted "without regard for human life" when George Floyd begged for his life?

A prosecuting attorney would certainly make exactly that case. A defence attorney would probably argue (1) that the arresting officer was being careful to keep most of his body weight on the other knee, and (2) that he hadn't been adequately trained on the risk factors for positional asphyxia.

On the evidence I've seen to date, I'd be very surprised if a jury convicted. Based on his actions, I think the Hennepin County Attorney agrees with me.

Of course, it's virtually certain that all kinds of new evidence is going to make it's way into the public arena. I will make up my mind when I've seen more evidence.

 

[bèlla]

If it was your family's place of business and suddenly you find yourself out of income to sustain your family will you sing the same tune?

As a business owner, the looting and destruction is horrible. The businesses aren’t responsible for what occurred.

But as a fellow citizen, I’m aware this escalated to a point you’d never see in well-heeled communities. Our city routinely shuts off shopping districts for sporting event finals. They protect the businesses.

When Operation Wall Street tried to shut down a highway they were thwarted and redirected elsewhere. Similar protests have been heavily monitored with a visible police presence to stave off destruction.

I don’t have the data, but I would be curious to see how these areas fare a few years down the road. Do businesses rebuild or go elsewhere? I suspect the answer is a bit of both.

~Bella

 

[bèlla]

Of course, it's virtually certain that all kinds of new evidence is going to make it's way into the public arena. I will make up my mind when I've seen more evidence.

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. —Proverbs 18:17

I remember the reactions on CF to the Covington and Smollett cases. Many were swift to judge based on limited information. In both instances their certainty was proven wrong when additional evidence came to light.

~Bella

 

[Radagast]

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. —Proverbs 18:17

You know, I was thinking of quoting exactly that passage.

I remember the reactions on CF to the Covington and Smollett cases. Many were swift to judge based on limited information. In both instances their certainty was proven wrong when additional evidence came to light.

Exactly.