Liberal Protests

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Mr Floyd was shot? I must’ve missed that part of the video. This all makes way more sense now!

I asked you before and you did not give me an answer, but are you also another poster on this board? 

[billsfan1959]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

What? Let me see if I understand. When the police respond to guy robbing a liquor store, you don’t expect him to be arrested on the spot and walked away in handcuffs? You believe “the process” should allow itself to play out? OK

 

Look. Violent crimes are committed everyday in this country. Sometimes people are arrested immediately and sometimes they are not. Those decisions are made by those that are responsible for making them. It is an imperfect system. Sometimes they are not popular to those on the outside. That is fine. You might no like it. That's fine.

 

The point is, those decisions shouldn't be made by you or others, and certainly shouldn't be made based on emotion.

 

I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. 

 

If people don't like it, then maybe they should have the laws changed that allow people to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by public opinion and just do away with the legal process.

 

9 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

You already know why. 

 

Why was the reporter arrested on the spot for a non-violent act? 

 

I don't already know why. Explain it to me.

Edited May 29, 2020 by billsfan1959

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Look. Violent crimes are committed everyday in this country. Sometimes people are arrested immediately and sometimes they are not. Those decisions are made by those that are responsible for making them. It is an imperfect system. Sometimes they are not popular to those on the outside. That is fine. You might no like it. That's fine.

 

The point is, those decisions shouldn't be made by you or others, and certainly shouldn't be made based on emotion.

 

I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. 

 

If people don't like it, then maybe they should have the laws changed that allow people to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by public opinion and just do away with the legal process.

You’re aware that arrested is not the same as convicted right? I just to want to make sure we have our basic vocabulary clear here. Sheeesh

[Warren Zevon]

2 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. 

 

 

From the clown yelling #FLYNNDICATED!

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Look. Violent crimes are committed everyday in this country. Sometimes people are arrested immediately and sometimes they are not. Those decisions are made by those that are responsible for making them. It is an imperfect system. Sometimes they are not popular to those on the outside. That is fine. You might no like it. That's fine.

 

The point is, those decisions shouldn't be made by you or others, and certainly shouldn't be made based on emotion.

 

I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. 

 

If people don't like it, then maybe they should have the laws changed that allow people to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by public opinion and just do away with the legal process.

 

Well said. The officer who applied the knee is in deep legal (criminal) trouble.  The other ones I’m not entirely sure about.  I need to see more video, hear eyewitness accounts, check for cell and other surveillance video, and see where it goes.  None of the questions with respect to any of the officers should be answered without a reasoned investigation.  

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

You’re aware that arrested is not the same as convicted right? I just to want to make sure we have our basic vocabulary clear here. Sheeesh

And lynching occurs AFTER conviction which occurs AFTER arresting. 

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Well said. The officer who applied the knee is in deep legal (criminal) trouble.  The other ones I’m not entirely sure about.  I need to see more video, hear eyewitness accounts, check for cell and other surveillance video, and see where it goes.  None of the questions with respect to any of the officers should be answered without a reasoned investigation.  

Which is done AFTER he’s arrested!

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’re aware that arrested is not the same as convicted right? I just to want to make sure we have our basic vocabulary clear here. Sheeesh

 

I am absolutely aware of the vocabulary. 

 

So, let me get this straight. If you were suspected of committing a crime, would you be fine with being arrested because that is what the public wants? After all, it is only an arrest...

 

Sheeesh

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’re aware that arrested is not the same as convicted right? I just to want to make sure we have our basic vocabulary clear here. Sheeesh

 

We’re clear on the basic vocabulary.  Frankly the only reason to arrest the most culpable officer now would be to prevent absconder (unlikely here; there’s probably eyes on the guy) or to quell the riots.  But to arrest now also kick-starts a process involving indictment, disclosure, and speedy trial considerations.  Sometimes it takes a little time to administer justice the right way. 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I am absolutely aware of the vocabulary. 

 

So, let me get this straight. If you were suspected of committing a crime, would you be fine with being arrested because that is what the public wants? After all, it is only an arrest...

 

Sheeesh

59....you have this out of order. The public is pissed off because he wasn’t arrested immediately. Which he should’ve been. Just like you would be when pulled over for DUI. I’m not suggesting he should be arrested because the public is pissed. I’m suggesting the public is pissed because he should’ve been arrested....get it?

 

And by the way....the Police do NOT administer ‘justice’. They simply make the arrest. The courts are the venue for justice.

Edited May 29, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[billsfan1959]

6 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

From the clown yelling #FLYNNDICATED!

 

That's actually a different thread. However, the principle for me is the same. I don't like the legal system driven by politics, emotion, or anything other than the facts and the law. If you want to pursue this, then post in the the thread where this is being discussed and I will be happy to address it further.

 

cheers

[SectionC3]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

59....you have this out of order. The public is pissed off because he wasn’t arrested immediately. Which he should’ve been. Just like you would be when pulled over for DUI. I’m not suggesting he should be arrested because the public is pissed. I’m suggesting the public is pissed because he should’ve been arrested....get it?

 

What crime should the officer have been charged with if he was arrested?  Intentional murder? Depraved indifference murder (assuming there is such a crime in Minnesota)?  Man 1? Man 2? Criminally negligent homicide?  And do you want the other cops at the scene to roll on the guy?  Maybe you do, depending on what the evidence says.  If you jump the gun on the primary target the less culpable guys might completely clam up (I realize they’re unlikely to talk without some sort of cooperation agreement) because they fear a rush to judgment against them, too.  (This, of course, also assumes that the prosecutor is willing to accept cooperation from the potentially less culpable officers in exchange for potential leniency.) 

 

This case might not be as clear-cut as you think, and for that reason it makes sense to look at everything you can (within a reasonable amount of time) before proceeding against the most culpable officers and potentially the other officers.  There are a lot of calculations to be made here.  Justice isn’t always an immediate or fast-moving thing. 

[billsfan1959]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

59....you have this out of order. The public is pissed off because he wasn’t arrested immediately. Which he should’ve been. Just like you would be when pulled over for DUI. I’m not suggesting he should be arrested because the public is pissed. I’m suggesting the public is pissed because he should’ve been arrested....get it?

 

I understand that people are pissed because he hasn't been arrested. That doesn't change my stance. Your belief that he should have been arrested immediately is simply your opinion. Many other people may share that same opinion. I might share that same opinion. The point is, we don't make those determinations and, ultimately, when he is arrested has absolutely no bearing on whether justice has been served.

 

Our legal system is an imperfect system. It may not give us what we want, when we want it; however, it is the system we have - and decisions made within that system should be, as much as possible, free of emotion.

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Boatdrinks]

22 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You believe that that’s what would happen to you? Really? The ‘process’ would dictate? 

There is a separate process for officers acting under the color of law, yes. An investigation will ensue, and it appears certain to me the officer(s) will be charged. They must proceed carefully to put him behind bars. Don’t pretend that you, a civilian ( I assume) would get the same consideration here. If you don’t understand why there is a difference, I’m not sure where to begin but you need to look into it. As for the officer, he did not appear to act within the scope of his training, imo.I’m confident that the evidence supports this and he will be convicted. That process needs to play out, though. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I understand that people are pissed because he hasn't been arrested. That doesn't change my stance. Your belief that he should have been arrested immediately is simply your opinion. Many other people may share that same opinion. I might share that same opinion. The point is, we don't make those determinations and, ultimately, when he is arrested has absolutely no bearing on whether justice has be served.

 

Our legal system is an imperfect system. It may not give us what we want, when we want it; however, it is the system we have - and decisions made within that system should be, as much as possible, free of emotion.

59....the people are complaining because there appear to be TWO SYSTEMS of justice. You don’t understand that? Really?

2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

There is a separate process for officers acting under the color of law, yes. An investigation will ensue, and it appears certain to me the officer(s) will be charged. They must proceed carefully to put him behind bars. Don’t pretend that you, a civilian ( I assume) would get the same consideration here. If you don’t understand why there is a difference, I’m not sure where to begin but you need to look into it. As for the officer, he did not appear to act within the scope of his training, imo.I’m confident that the evidence supports this and he will be convicted. That process needs to play out, though. 

And you expect the people to put up with this process for very much longer? Really? The system needs to change!

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

59....the people are complaining because there appear to be TWO SYSTEMS of justice. You don’t understand that? Really?

And you expect the people to put up with this process for very much longer? Really? The system needs to change!

No, it doesn’t. A civilian is not an officer of the law. That’s how it is, and how it has to be. A case will be built against this officer, and I believe he will serve jail time. You don’t dismantle the required protections due to the actions of a rogue officer. A cops job is difficult enough as it is. The looters and rioters are just looking for an excuse for their lawlessness. 

[Niagara Bill]

20 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Look. Violent crimes are committed everyday in this country. Sometimes people are arrested immediately and sometimes they are not. Those decisions are made by those that are responsible for making them. It is an imperfect system. Sometimes they are not popular to those on the outside. That is fine. You might no like it. That's fine.

 

The point is, those decisions shouldn't be made by you or others, and certainly shouldn't be made based on emotion.

 

I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. 

 

If people don't like it, then maybe they should have the laws changed that allow people to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by public opinion and just do away with the legal process.

 

 

I don't already know why. Explain it to me.

Again your point is well taken but these people are trying to have the law changed, starting 60 years ago up to Kapernick, but with no one listening so it goes. When you stop defending acts that are obviously wrong you can begin to hear and solve. It is ironic that this takes place under the heading Liberal protests....again a word that creates emotion and does not allow people to hear and be heard. The issue deserves not to have people pigeon holed as they speak. 

Some of your citizens thinks this is a version of the old kkk lynchings. Do you hear that....ignore the professional agitators, ignore the paid Agent's rhetoric, just ,listen to the cry of your fellow citizens.

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

I agree that guns make cops jobs way more dangerous and guns are the reason cops are so afraid and open fire too easily at times. Good point. Mr. Saturday Night Special is a song of truth 

How would I be able to do that count to get a percentage? Really dumb question 

Criminals with guns are what make cops jobs dangerous. 

[billsfan1959]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

59....the people are complaining because there appear to be TWO SYSTEMS of justice. You don’t understand that? Really?

 

You do not seem to understand my point. Whatever the public thinks and is complaining about should never have a place in the decision-making process of arresting or charging anyone. Again, the legal system is imperfect. There are legitimate avenues to correct those imperfections and the legal system has evolved considerably based on legitimate ways of addressing deficiencies on everything from arrests to capital punishment.

 

People can be upset, that is their right. I don't believe it justifies criminal behavior on their part and I don't believe it should be a factor in when an arrest is made.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Criminals with guns are what make cops jobs dangerous. 

Yes! So easy for criminals to get guns. No wonder the cops are so afraid. So afraid, they are shooting unarmed people that did nothing wrong. 

 

Guns are just making police work so very dangerous that it corrupts the entire system.