advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: Ammo
Date: May 28, 2020 01:13PM
Another black man murdered by police. The arresting officer had a dozen complaints filed against him during his employment by the Minneapolis Police Department. None of them were upheld. It’s practically impossible to fire these criminals.

[www.cnn.com]



Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. —Wendy Mass

Until you make your unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate. - Carl Jung
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: C(-)ris
Date: May 28, 2020 01:29PM
They burned down a new low income housing complex and an AutoZone. Destroyed dozens of family owned restaurants, and looted a Aldi and a Target. A looter was also killed by a Pawn Shop owner and over 80 families are without housing due to their homes being destroyed.

The police department already fired the 4 officers. It is on the prosecutor's office to bring up charges and issue an arrest warrant.



C(-)ris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Throwback Thursday Signature:




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2020 01:47PM by C(-)ris.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: Acer
Date: May 28, 2020 01:40PM
OK, I'll ask it. How does burning down your own neighborhood bring bad cops to justice?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: May 28, 2020 01:50PM
Quote
Acer
OK, I'll ask it. How does burning down your own neighborhood bring bad cops to justice?
It doesn't. The protests are an expression of outrage. The riots and subsquent damage are a spillover from that outrate.

If the murderers are brought to justice, as the root cause of the riots and damage and death, they should technically be charged with those crimes as well. After all, if person A commits a crime and the police kill a bystander, Person A is charged with that murder.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: Ted King
Date: May 28, 2020 02:03PM
The officers will no doubt argue that they are entitled to "qualified immunity":

[slate.com]

Quote

Although the Constitution bars government officials from engaging in race discrimination, conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, or taking someone’s life without due process, those guarantees do not enforce themselves. Congress recognized this problem during Reconstruction, when Southern state officials refused to protect newly freed black citizens, instead colluding with white civilians to terrorize them. In response, Congress passed three Enforcement Acts, which, among other things, allowed individuals to sue state officials who violate their civil rights in federal court. That provision, now known as Section 1983, provides the basis for most federal lawsuits against state police officers.

Under the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of Section 1983, however, it is not enough for victims to prove a violation of some constitutional right. They must also demonstrate that this right is “clearly established,” meaning a court has previously found that a very similar offense violated the Constitution. If a victim cannot meet this burden, the state official receives “qualified immunity,” and the lawsuit fails. Notably, the words clearly established do not actually appear in Section 1983. They are a gloss that SCOTUS imposed upon the law, a reflection of the justices’ personal belief that law enforcement needs wiggle room when making split-second decisions.

The addition of a “clearly established” requirement has transformed Section 1983 into a rubber stamp for egregious police misconduct. It is almost always possible for a judge to insist that a right is not “clearly established” because there is no precedent with the exact same facts. Two cases from 2017 illustrate the absurdity of this rule. In one, a court granted qualified immunity to Deputy Richard Sylvester, who shot a man to death in his own apartment for no reason. Why? The victim had no “clearly established” right not to be murdered in his home by a cop. In the other, a court granted qualified immunity to Officer Terence Garrison, who let his police dog maul a homeless man whom he knew to be innocent. The court explained that the victim had no “clearly established” right not to be randomly disfigured by a police dog.

For years, the Supreme Court has encouraged decisions like these by smacking down those few judges who dare to deny qualified immunity to police officers. Today, though, there is an emerging, cross-ideological consensus that the court’s jurisprudence here has spiraled out of control. Led by the libertarian Cato Institute, a broad coalition of progressive and libertarian groups has urged SCOTUS to reevaluate its qualified immunity precedent. They’ve gotten a boost from both Justice Sonia Sotomayor—who has condemned the “shoot first, think later” policing encouraged by the doctrine—and Justice Clarence Thomas, who has announced his desire to “reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence.” Nevertheless, a Reuters investigation found that lower courts have increasingly sided with police over victims in qualified immunity cases over the last decade.

The fight against out-of-control qualified immunity has produced a flood of appeals that force SCOTUS to confront the consequences of its own handiwork. On May 18, the court turned away three of these appeals, including a jaw-dropping case in which police were granted qualified immunity after literally stealing $225,000. (There is no clearly established right not to be robbed by cops, the court held.) But there are still 10 on the docket. These cases include:

• Baxter v. Bracey, in which two officers received qualified immunity after siccing their police dog on a suspect who had surrendered and was sitting on the ground with his hands up.

• Corbitt v. Vickers, in which a police officer received qualified immunity after barging into a family’s yard, shooting a 10-year-old child who was lying on the ground, and attempting to shoot a docile dog who posed no threat.

• Cooper v. Flaig, in which police officers received qualified immunity after using a stun gun on an unarmed black man nine times while he was undergoing a mental health episode, killing him. The officers continued to stun the victim while he lay face down on the floor with his hands cuffed behind his back. They laughed as he died in front of them.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: Janit
Date: May 28, 2020 02:05PM
Quote
Acer
OK, I'll ask it. How does burning down your own neighborhood bring bad cops to justice?

People in severe emotional pain rarely respond rationally.

And the people in control who inflict such pain, expecting no response, are suffering from a different type of irrationality.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: Ted King
Date: May 28, 2020 02:08PM
Black Lives Matter
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: Blankity Blank
Date: May 28, 2020 02:10PM
Quote
Acer
OK, I'll ask it. How does burning down your own neighborhood bring bad cops to justice?

It’s undoubtedly pyrrhic in the end, but it can send a message that the fuse is near gone.

It is not lost on many that if Food Desertville is burning, Joe Sixpack Town might not be far behind, and heads in high places will roll if there’s even a suspicion of ripples reaching Six Figure Villas or higher up the food chain.

So it sometimes serves to get the attention of the gilded donkeys long enough for them to throw the bones of a foot soldier or two to “those people”.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: May 28, 2020 04:29PM
Ashley Reese said so much so well here, I don't need to comment.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2020 04:43PM by rjmacs.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: hal
Date: May 28, 2020 04:53PM
Quote
rjmacs
Ashley Reese said so much so well here, I don't need to comment.

The last two paragraphs are amazingly concise:

The pattern is easy enough to follow: A police officer is alleged to have killed an unarmed black person, a viral video emerges, protesters assemble, and the police respond to peaceful protest with suffocating tear gas and rubber bullets. By then, all bets are off, and so begin the fires and so-called “looting” while America’s moral arbiters play judge and jury.

While these critics include timid liberals who worry about optics of the protest above all else, the loudest naysayers have been right-wing scourges like Tucker Carlson, who said that the riots are worse than police brutality, and Charlie Kirk, who tweeted, “If you loot riot and destroy you lose all moral credibility, in my eyes, to protest injustice.” (Of course, Kirk was silent about Floyd’s death prior to the protests; it’s the destruction of property that inspired him to tweet, not Floyd’s untimely death.)

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: chopper
Date: May 28, 2020 05:28PM
I live here.

I have been told by police detectives in other locales (St Paul) that Minneapolis is the most corrupt dept in the Midwest. One black detective told me that he won't go in to Mpls without his badge because of Mpls' "thump first ask questions when they come to" policy.

Stuff like killing an innocent man because they feel like it is frankly old hat for the Mpls police dept. It has been this way for over 30 years.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: bfd
Date: May 28, 2020 07:05PM
Minnesota nice…
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Rioting in Minneapolis
Posted by: RgrF
Date: May 28, 2020 07:10PM
How the media adds to the bias created by using looting in a lede or story
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 129
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018