The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,960
United States
Mile High City
I'm sure that one will quickly pass in some southern states. I would be very surprised if it passed in New York or Minnesota.
Couple of things:

1) Recording the police is constitutionally protected.
2) I have no idea why this would be popular with anyone but police.
 
23,728
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
I'm sure that one will quickly pass in some southern states. I would be very surprised if it passed in New York or Minnesota.
Constitutional hurdles block this particular path. Yes, I realize such hurdles aren't of great concern to those proposing such bills...particularly an ex-cop. You don't elect an ex-cop into political office and expect them to do not corruption.

Edit: Tree'd by Danoff.
 
Last edited:

UKMikey

Premium
10,430
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
Arizona Mirror's website is blocked in the UK but the Tucson Sentinel also covered the story. He argues it's "not unconstitutional" because he doesn't want to ban filming from way back (15ft)... 🤔
 
Last edited:

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,960
United States
Mile High City
Arizona Mirror's webdite is blocked in the UK but the Tucson Sentinel also covered the story. He argues it's "not unconstitutional" because he doesn't want to ban filming from way back (15ft)... 🤔
I would think that would still be unconstitutional. I see the argument that it would be allowed past a certain distance, but I think that the law is designed in an unconstitutional way - arbitrarily blocking a protected and legal activity up to 15 ft. A better (and possibly constitutional) law that would prevent bystanders from filming so closely that it causes a problem is to make it illegal to interfere with the police while they carry out their duties, especially arrests. We could call it obstruction of just... oh wait, we already have that.

So we're good then. This is a stupid idea.
 
Last edited:

UKMikey

Premium
10,430
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
So we're good then. This is a stupid idea.
"Stupid" gives the lawmaker the benefit of ignorance and allows for the possibility that this law isn't deliberately designed to obstruct justice. I'm going with "evil". His fellow lawmakers would be stupid to pass it though.
 
Last edited:

kjb

1,814
United States
Cary, NC
mrbabyboyd
"Stupid" gives the lawmaker the benefit of ignorance and allows for the possibility that this law isn't deliberately designed to obstruct justice. I'm going with "evil". His fellow lawmakers would be stupid to pass it though.
I don't think he is evil just willfully ignorant. No forget you're right just evil
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,960
United States
Mile High City
"Stupid" gives the lawmaker the benefit of ignorance and allows for the possibility that this law isn't deliberately designed to obstruct justice. I'm going with "evil". His fellow lawmakers would be stupid to pass it though.

kjb
I don't think he is evil just willfully ignorant. No forget you're right just evil
I understand why you would say this, but I think there are alternative explanations. It could stem from a misguided sense of comradery, or a deep belief of the righteousness of the job and the ability to ascertain who is guilty and who is innocent, or even just laziness.

"never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence"
 

UKMikey

Premium
10,430
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
I understand why you would say this, but I think there are alternative explanations. It could stem from a misguided sense of comradery, or a deep belief of the righteousness of the job and the ability to ascertain who is guilty and who is innocent, or even just laziness.

"never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence"
As far as the last of those is concerned, being lazy in a situation which you know can lead to wrongful incarceration or death goes beyond misguidedness in my eyes.

If the legislative process allows this law to go ahead then it's failed those future potential victims as far as I'm concerned, especially given the huge visibility of the case at the centre of this thread.
 
Last edited:

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,960
United States
Mile High City
If the legislative process allows this law to go ahead then it's failed those future potential victims as far as I'm concerned
For sure. But it wouldn't be the first time right wingers put forward legislation that everyone should know is unconstitutional on its face simply to appease the crazies.
 
2,841
United States
United States
I'm sure that one will quickly pass in some southern states. I would be very surprised if it passed in New York or Minnesota.
Speaking of stupid southern states laws. This Tennessee lawmaker wants to pass a law named after Kyle Rittenhouse that would make the state reimburse legal fees and lost wages to someone that is charged with murder but then "found innocent" of the charge if they were "proven" to have acted in self defense.

Now let's see if that law would apply to someone of color that is proven to have acted in self defense. My guess is this same redneck politician would come up with some excuse as to why it wouldn't.

 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,960
United States
Mile High City
Speaking of stupid southern states laws. This Tennessee lawmaker wants to pass a law named after Kyle Rittenhouse that would make the state reimburse legal fees and lost wages to someone that is charged with murder but then "found innocent" of the charge if they were "proven" to have acted in self defense.

Now let's see if that law would apply to someone of color that is proven to have acted in self defense. My guess is this same redneck politician would come up with some excuse as to why it wouldn't.

"loser pays" but for murder only. Sounds like mostly a political stunt rather than any meaningful attempt to solve a problem.
 
23,728
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
"loser pays" but for murder only. Sounds like mostly a political stunt rather than any meaningful attempt to solve a problem.
10/10 performative populist pandering.

It's basically reverse Qualified Immunity, penalizing only prosecutors in only instances of defendants found not guilty of murder when the defense argues they acted in self-defense.

It's not going to happen (I'd lay odds this lawmaker is opposed to eliminating or reforming QI, even), but I'd be all for this if it's expanded to all manner of alleged offenses. Incentivize building a strong case and charging appropriately. I'd even be okay with the name. I get it. It's pretty standard hero worship; they needed Kyle to be vindicated and now they need to fellate him.
 
23,728
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
"The National Rifle Association (NRA), the country's premier gun advocacy group, has yet to make a statement on the killing. They've struggled with this before."
An officer with the Minneapolis Police Department SWAT team shot and killed a 22-year-old man early Wednesday morning during the execution of a no-knock raid, reinvigorating debate around a law-enforcement tactic that many say is ripe for abuse.

The victim, Amir Locke, who appeared to be asleep on the couch that morning, was not named on that warrant. In a matter of about three seconds, body camera footage shows the man—buried under a thick white blanket—stirring to the sound of the cops' entry with his hand on the barrel of a firearm. Officer Mark Hanneman then shoots him three times.

Interim Minneapolis Police Chief Amelia Huffman initially said that Hanneman shot Locke because Locke pointed his gun "in the direction of officers." But the footage released by the government appeared to contradict that: Locke's gun was pointed to the side, and his hand was on the barrel of the weapon, not the trigger.

He owned the gun legally and had a concealed carry permit, according to his family's legal representation. "My son was executed…and now his dreams have been destroyed," said Locke's mother, Karen Wells, at a press conference Friday. "They didn't even give him a chance," echoed attorney Ben Crump.

Locke's death is likely to exert further scrutiny on no-knock raids, which have come under fire in recent years for their dire unintended consequences. In this case, the St. Paul Police Department requested that the SWAT team use a knock-and-announce warrant, but the Minneapolis officers reportedly countered that they would only move forward with a no-knock raid.

The March 2020 killing of Breonna Taylor sparked a great deal of debate over police tactics after the 26-year-old woman died when Louisville Police shot her during the execution of a drug raid targeting her boyfriend. But the raid itself is not the only circumstance Taylor and Locke's cases have in common. In Taylor's case, her partner, Kenneth Walker, exited the bed, retrieved a gun, and fired one shot upon hearing someone barge into Taylor's apartment. He told authorities he thought it was her ex-boyfriend breaking in. The police responded, shooting Taylor five times.* Walker was subsequently charged with attempted murder, though that was ultimately dismissed in May 2020.

Walker also had a license to carry.

Taylor's story gained widespread traction in the media. Here's one that didn't: Andrew Coffee IV of Gifford, Florida, was recently acquitted of murdering his 21-year-old girlfriend, Alteria Woods. But no one—including the state—posited that he'd shot Woods. Deputies with the Indian River County Sheriff's Office shot her 10 times during a raid that targeted Coffee IV's father. Coffee IV opened fire after cops threw a flash-bang grenade into his room and smashed his window. The state charged him with the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer along with the felony murder of Woods, a controversial rule that allows the government to charge someone with a homicide they didn't carry out if it took place during a related offense.

During his trial, the defense argued that he believed the cops to be intruders and shot in self-defense, an argument that ultimately persuaded a jury.

Locke's scenario should bother just about anyone who supports the right to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment does not discriminate, nor does it evaporate as soon as the government enters the premises, particularly when considering that the Founding impetus behind it was to protect against a tyrannical state.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), the country's premier gun advocacy group, has yet to make a statement on the killing. They've struggled with this before. Consider Philando Castile, who was shot and killed by St. Anthony Police Department Officer Jeronimo Yanez in 2016 during a routine traffic stop after Castile calmly indicated he had a firearm in the vehicle. (St. Anthony is a suburb of Minneapolis, located about five minutes across the Mississippi River.)

The NRA remained silent for quite a while until August 2017 when then-spokesperson Dana Loesch said that the organization declined to defend Castile because he had marijuana in his car at the time of his death. As of this writing, no NRA spokesperson has responded to Reason's request for comment.

*CORRECTION: The original version of this article misstated where Taylor was positioned when police shot her.
 

Blitz24

Chromalusion Member
Premium
17,376
United States
NJ/USA
Blitzbay
Blitzbay
23,728
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
An old thread from October 2020 is trending on imgur right now.


I recall seeing this. FOP exists to shield bad actors.

Police unions aren't real unions. Know how you can tell? Republicans support them.

Speaking of police unions...

Edit: 19 per AP.


Texas police unions Austin Police Association and Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas want the Travis County DA to withhold announcements of these indictments until after the election.

A press release and public announcement by a CLEAT representative stated "the timing of these politicized cases is intended to drive up voter turnout during the early voting period of the Democratic primaries for the George Soros anti-police candidates." Similarly, the APA president alleges the DA is "driving people to vote for a far-left radical ex-city councilman who is running for Congress."
 
Last edited:
23,728
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
"loser pays" but for murder only. Sounds like mostly a political stunt rather than any meaningful attempt to solve a problem.
10/10 performative populist pandering.

It's basically reverse Qualified Immunity, penalizing only prosecutors in only instances of defendants found not guilty of murder when the defense argues they acted in self-defense.

It's not going to happen (I'd lay odds this lawmaker is opposed to eliminating or reforming QI, even), but I'd be all for this if it's expanded to all manner of alleged offenses. Incentivize building a strong case and charging appropriately. I'd even be okay with the name. I get it. It's pretty standard hero worship; they needed Kyle to be vindicated and now they need to fellate him.
Sans performativity, coming out of Georgia.