The Bryant Case is Disturbing

[pondwater]

When discussing inconsistencies in a person's position, it is necessary to refer to their prior statements in past examples; in this case, regarding the appropriate use of force by law enforcement for what an officer perceives to be a crime in progress.

Your attempts to insist that we only talk about this position you hold right now and not the previous positions you have held that contradict it is, in effect, trying to avoid accountability for your past statements.

Anyhow, back on topic. Spider, do you support the police shooting a person attempting to murder another person?
 

[Spider-Dan]

I apparently edited this in while you were replying, so I'll move it here to address your question:

You haven't heard me criticize the officer that shot Bryant because I haven't had reason to.  The irony is that you are screaming and shouting for the liberals to do exactly what you claim you DON'T do: declare an opinion before all the facts are known.  But thats not surprising, because you don't actually follow that supposed guideline. Your version of "waiting to pass judgment" is NEVER to silently withhold your opinion; it is, nearly without exception, to offer excuses and rationalizations for the officer's actions.

[dolphins4life]

I apparently edited this in while you were replying, so I'll move it here to address your question:

You haven't heard me criticize the officer that shot Bryant because I haven't had reason to.  The irony is that you are screaming and shouting for the liberals to do exactly what you claim you DON'T do: declare an opinion before all the facts are known.  But thats not surprising, because you don't actually follow that supposed guideline. Your version of "waiting to pass judgment" is NEVER to silently withhold your opinion; it is, nearly without exception, to offer excuses and rationalizations for the officer's actions.

  So your answer is yes.    I too, prefer to wait for the facts to be in.  I may have done this too hastily, in the George Floyd case because I can't fathom any reason why an unconscious suspect poses any threat. 

[Spider-Dan]

I may have done this too hastily, in the George Floyd case because I can't fathom any reason why an unconscious suspect poses any threat.

In the Floyd case, I believe most of the Chauvin defenders (yourself included) were arguing that Floyd coincidentally died from a drug overdose that had nothing to do with being pinned to the ground with a knee on his neck.  Therefore, the question of any "threat presented" was immaterial, as Chauvin didn't use any excessive force and Floyd's OD was completely unrelated to the arrest.

[ArtieChokePhin]

In the Floyd case, I believe most of the Chauvin defenders (yourself included) were arguing that Floyd coincidentally died from a drug overdose that had nothing to do with being pinned to the ground with a knee on his neck.  Therefore, the question of any "threat presented" was immaterial, as Chauvin didn't use any excessive force and Floyd's OD was completely unrelated to the arrest.

Nobody's defending Chauvin's actions.  I agree with Pondwater that he is a scumbag and deserved to be convicted of something, but not second degree murder.  There was no damage to Floyd's carotid artery, which means that Chauvin kneeling on his neck is not what killed him.

[Spider-Dan]

You're still defending Chauvin now by saying that he didn't kill Floyd.  This implies two things:

1) Chauvin was unjustly convicted of a crime he didn't commit and is the victim here
2) Floyd is to blame for his own death

[pondwater]

You're still defending Chauvin now by saying that he didn't kill Floyd.  This implies two things:

Again, I'm not defending anyone. Your premise is faulty. I only accept a guilty verdict after the trial is because of two fundamental reasons.

1. In this country, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
2. Only the jury can render a guilty verdict after the facts are on the table. Our opinions don't really matter.

1) Chauvin was unjustly convicted of a crime he didn't commit and is the victim here

No, Chauvin isn't a victim. And I have always maintained that he should be held accountable. But he was unjustly convicted of 2 murder charges. In fact, some of the verdicts are likely to be overturned. At which time you'll conveniently go silent and/or condone when the riots ensue, people are killed, and cities are burned to the ground.

2) Floyd is to blame for his own death

Actually, cause comes before effect. If Floyd wasn't commiting a crime(s), he wouldn't have ever come in contact with Chauvin or any other law enforcement that day. Likewise, if Floyd would have simply gotten into the back of the police car, he wouldn't have been on the pavement.

I wonder why no one ever addresses why these people resist arrest in the first place. Why don't they want to be arrested or go to jail so badly that they'll risk their life fighting with police?

Hey Spider, if the cops arrest you. Are you going to resist arrest and fight with the police?

[Spider-Dan]

I was actually responding to ArtieChokePhin above me, but while we're here:

I only accept a guilty verdict after the trial is because of two fundamental reasons.

But he was unjustly convicted of 2 murder charges.

It sounds like you didn't accept the guilty verdict after the trial, either.  Almost like you had already made up your mind long before, instead of "withholding judgement until all the facts are on the table."

If Floyd wasn't commiting a crime(s), he wouldn't have ever come in contact with Chauvin or any other law enforcement that day.

You are making a definitive statement that Floyd was "committing a crime." However:

1. In this country, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
2. Only the jury can render a guilty verdict after the facts are on the table. Our opinions don't really matter.

The problem should be obvious: you only appear to believe in due process for cops.  When a cop claims a suspect was resisting arrest, you seem to believe that bypasses the rest of the legal system.

[pondwater]

I was actually responding to ArtieChokePhin above me, but while we're here:
It sounds like you didn't accept the guilty verdict after the trial, either.  Almost like you had already made up your mind long before, instead of "withholding judgement until all the facts are on the table."

Let's be clear, I fully accept that he was guilty of a crime. However, I don't agree with the multiple charges he was found guilty of due to political pressure. I also think the jury should have been sequestered for the full trial.

You are making a definitive statement that Floyd was "committing a crime." However:

The problem should be obvious: you only appear to believe in due process for cops.  When a cop claims a suspect was resisting arrest, you seem to believe that bypasses the rest of the legal system.

That's your own brainwashed imagination, no one ever said that. Floyd absolutely deserved due process. But that's not what we're talking about. I was answering your question

2) Floyd is to blame for his own death

But now you're trying to pivot to something else to circumvent the issues you won't address. The police didn't just target him and harass him. The police were called on him for committing a crime. Then he was non compliant, didn't follow law enforcement directions, and resisted arrest. So yes, Floyd's poor decisions and behavior that day directly led to his own death. That doesn't mean he deserved to die. It doesn't mean that Chauvin wasn't guilty of a crime. It means Floyd's poor decisions and behavior that day directly led to his own death. 

Again, I wonder why no one ever addresses why these people resist arrest in the first place. Why don't they want to be arrested or go to jail so badly that they'll risk their life fighting with police?

Hey Spider, if the cops arrest you. Are you going to resist arrest and fight with the police?

[Spider-Dan]

Hey pondwater, are you in favor of police executing suspects before they are given a trial?  It's pretty easy to boil issues down to strawman questions.

"Why did they resist arrest?" is not only a pointless question, it's a redundant one, for many reasons:

- resisting arrest is a charge like any other, where you are innocent until proven guilty in court
- on conviction, that charge does not carry the death penalty
- resisting arrest is, by definition, a secondary charge, so instead of asking "Why resist arrest?" it would be more appropriate to ask "Why pass a counterfeit bill?" or "Why sell loose cigarettes?"... except that those are also CHARGES, and the suspect is still innocent until proven guilty of those, too!

Furthermore, by YOUR standard, we can't even watch a video and say that a person was definitively "resisting arrest," because you watched a video of a cop clearly murdering a handcuffed man by kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes, and your response was "We can't rush to judgement until after the trial is done!  Maybe it was a drug overdose!"

You only extend the presumption of innocence to cops.  The civilians killed by these innocent-until-proven-guilty cops receive no such courtesy from you.

[dolphins4life]

It doesn't mean that people want to riot and protest and go after cops for no reason.  You're starting with a failed premise.

  I thin many of them do want to riot and destroy things for fun

[dolphins4life]

Hey pondwater, are you in favor of police executing suspects before they are given a trial?  It's pretty easy to boil issues down to strawman questions.

"Why did they resist arrest?" is not only a pointless question, it's a redundant one, for many reasons:

- resisting arrest is a charge like any other, where you are innocent until proven guilty in court
- on conviction, that charge does not carry the death penalty
- resisting arrest is, by definition, a secondary charge, so instead of asking "Why resist arrest?" it would be more appropriate to ask "Why pass a counterfeit bill?" or "Why sell loose cigarettes?"... except that those are also CHARGES, and the suspect is still innocent until proven guilty of those, too!  Spider, when you resist arrest, you potentially become a threat

Furthermore, by YOUR standard, we can't even watch a video and say that a person was definitively "resisting arrest," because you watched a video of a cop clearly murdering a handcuffed man by kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes, and your response was "We can't rush to judgement until after the trial is done!  Maybe it was a drug overdose!"

You only extend the presumption of innocence to cops.  The civilians killed by these innocent-until-proven-guilty cops receive no such courtesy from you.

[dolphins4life]

More quitting https://www.independentsentinel.com/police-officers-leave-in-droves-as-minneapolis-becomes-murderapolis/

[pondwater]

Hey pondwater, are you in favor of police executing suspects before they are given a trial?  It's pretty easy to boil issues down to strawman questions.

"Why did they resist arrest?" is not only a pointless question, it's a redundant one, for many reasons:

- resisting arrest is a charge like any other, where you are innocent until proven guilty in court
- on conviction, that charge does not carry the death penalty
- resisting arrest is, by definition, a secondary charge, so instead of asking "Why resist arrest?" it would be more appropriate to ask "Why pass a counterfeit bill?" or "Why sell loose cigarettes?"... except that those are also CHARGES, and the suspect is still innocent until proven guilty of those, too!

Furthermore, by YOUR standard, we can't even watch a video and say that a person was definitively "resisting arrest," because you watched a video of a cop clearly murdering a handcuffed man by kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes, and your response was "We can't rush to judgement until after the trial is done!  Maybe it was a drug overdose!"

You only extend the presumption of innocence to cops.  The civilians killed by these innocent-until-proven-guilty cops receive no such courtesy from you.

Soooo, are we supposed to assume from your hormonal rant that you also encourage and approve of citizens committing crime, resisting arrest, assaulting law enforcement, and being a threat to other's lives?

We already know you support violent riots that included innocent deaths, burning down cities, and destroying millions of dollars of property in order to keep racial division and hate brewing in the country.

[Spider-Dan]

So Mr. "Stop Changing The Subject!" doesn't want to talk about the attempted overthrow of our government earlier this year, but is very interested in talking about last summer's protests.  Curious, indeed.

From my end, this is pretty simple: I think everyone deserves their day in court, even alleged criminals accused of passing counterfeit bills, driving with a broken taillight, or even resisting arrest.  We cannot have a functioning society where cops are presumed innocent-until-proven-guilty but civilians are presumed guilty-until-proven-innocent.