George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Seattle, Mar 30, 2021.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    When he drew the gun he confirmed it - if you pay attention you can tell earlier. He has his hand on the gun and has readied it to fire on trigger pull before he reaches the car - he draws and aims it without taking it off safety or unclipping the holster etc.
    True. So?
    He didn't walk up to window spouting obscenities either - he was calm throughout. Although he did ready his gun and put his hand on it walking up, before Floyd knew he was there.
    As I noted before, a defense for the two trainee officers is easily made and I'm willing. They certainly behaved better than Chauvin, and could probably have got Floyd into the ambulance without suffocating him at all.
    I first provided you with the body cam footage showing how Floyd was handled, close up and clear, with the time labeled. You then provided some footage that agreed, some that was of other stuff, and some obscured view from across the street. You provided no footage that contradicted the footage I provided. You provided no footage of Floyd "lunging", for example.
    No argument involved.
    Do keep up, eh? We're taking things slowly, with lots of repetition.
    What you claim to be replying to is this: there is no evidence that any officer involved ever thought Floyd was "pulling a gun" .
    Are getting ready to provide some?
    Not at all. I'm beginning to think you never even watched my provided footage, with its time labels and everything.
    I do manage to avoid claiming that things I just saw on unedited raw video, and have been familiar with all my life, are physically and biologically impossible. The alternative is to be claiming I am superman, according to you. I guess I have to go with that, then - I, and all my brothers, and most of my male friends (there's one in a wheelchair, but even he - - - ) and everyone I've worked with, and both trainee cops in that video, are supermen.
    So does everyone else.
    They do not have the right to abuse people, let alone kill them, because they are frightened of imaginary things, a common effect of being confused by racial stereotypes. The question is why they were frightened (according to you. The question is if they were frightened, according to me. Either question is fine - pick one.)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Those who want to "simply disagree" can usually manage it in single line or two. But you have devoted many many posts to making your disagreement known in this thread. That shows that this issue, for whatever reason, is significant for you. It matters to you, for some reason, that Chauvin not be guilty of murdering George Floyd. You want that to be the truth. It is "your truth", it seems. You're heavily invested in this. Why?
    I haven't seen you posting 700 posts to stridently argue for the guilt of a white cop assaulting a black man, or for the innocence of a black man in the face of white injustice. So why are you so desperate to defend Chauvin here? You identify with him, perhaps?

    Whatever the case, this pretense of yours that you're not emotionally invested in this is transparently false.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    "Intent to kill" is irrelevant wordplay. Floyd was intentionally abused, the abuse killed him, and the fact that the abuse was killing him was visible to bystanders and witnesses as well as known to the policemen involved. They certainly did not avoid killing him, or modify their behavior to keep him from being killed by their abuse. They suffocated him for nine minutes, without even allowing medical care when he became "unresponsive".

    Meanwhile: Since white men are not treated like that in the US, you are probably safe in virtue signaling by making such an odd claim. You will never have to back it up. But why did you bother? Of course virtue claiming is central to your posting on all racial matters here, but that was a notably odd virtue to claim.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    [1/2]

    On Fallacy and Excrement

    Well, explaining how the facts work is not something you do. Indeed, as noted, explaining how the facts work is something of a critical argument. Still, though—

    Black people were more likely to be violent offenders (compared to their percentage of the population), according to the victims, 70% of which were themselves black. To deny that would be both blaming the victim and ignoring black voices. So which are you going to pull now?

    —you really are just presenting the 「Black people are scary」 argument. Remember, when the statistics you offer include the problem itself, you need to be able to account for it. Those who pay attention to how these things go were actually surprised, earlier this month, a local grand jury indicted a former prosecutor for showing favor in handling the Arbery case; what is not surprising is that comparative numbers of something like what qualifies as resisting arrest are tainted by the fact of police and prosecutorial prejudice long recognized.

    Moreover, we might observe that Black discourse about Black on Black violence is not subject to your approval, and given your blunt rejections of what that critical discourse includes, your fallacy about victim blaming and ignoring black voices is particularly stupid.

    (¡chortle!)

    If your objective analysis and evaluation precludes examining and even challenging analyitical presuppositions, then you're doing it wrong. Critical thinking is part of any objective critical thesis.

    You missed some. How about Merriam-Webster↱, noting especially for our purposes 1c, "exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation", and 1d, "including variant readings and scholarly emendations". We might wonder what manner of definitions you would prefer to exclude. As I said, it is possible that identifiable frameworks for critical thinking about particular questions of history can gain a name; after all, if people are going to discuss something, they need to be able to discuss it.

    Certes, you are capable of comprehending that your statistics were offered toward particular application; your abuse of the null hypothesis aside, we might recall those statistics were offered as components of your response to your own fallacy↑, and inasmuch as this tracks back to your claim↑ that Black men are "objectively, more dangerous to officers", no wonder you don't want to explain how that works.

    Your would-be null hypothesis presupposes some manner of ceteris paribus that is not, and never has been, in effect. A quarter century ago, usage and prosecution statistics showed federal law enforcers charging Black men with crack cocaine offenses at extraordinary rates compared to users; the racism of the War Against Drugs was known long before Tulia, and its effects are generational. Compared to reasonable grounds for stop-and-frisk and other standards of what a law enforcer deems suspicious, or how prosecutors describe crimes in order to justify charges and sentences, your apparently static objectivity doesn't seem to have any functional meaning; it's more like a dysfunctional object that just sits there in order to be seen.

    Additionally, your ellipsis omits an important aspect, to "consider the range and scale of what Vociferous, or any of his predecessors even in our own community, demand", such as what "critical analysis can people provide to answer questions about crime rates per subpopulation". Your deadweight objet de foi doesn't really tell us much about how these statistics work, or what they mean, or how they relate to known trends of prejudice in law enforcement. If someone wished to address your statistics, the harder part of answering your claim is that nobody really knows what it is; that Black men are "objectively, more dangerous to officers" is a claim you apparently cannot explain.

    There is, of course, the durarara argument°. Our similar principle reminds that true ceteris paribus would be extraordinary. In this sense, waiting for evidence to address such an incomplete argument is the extraordinary position. What do statistics representing subjective determinations mean compared to the known unreliability of that statistical range? Nobody else can write your question for you. Compared to the documented history of institutional racism affecting law enforcement, crime and punishment, and justice, a static objet d'foi that Black men are "objectively, more dangerous to officers" is the extraordinary argument.

    This particular bit of dishonesty on your part is extraordinarily stupid. So, go back to the second quote in your post ("Not all critical thought …"), and observe the last part of what you quoted, "the response↗ is simply to deny the history°." Do you see that degree sign, which I regularly use as a footnote mark? Did you notice that not only do I link to your post as an example of denying history, the indicated footnote actually provides the text of the example? Given the example of your denial of history—("There is no wage discrimination")—perhaps your demand, "Where have I denied any history?" might have been at least a little rash; and, furthermore, given the fact that the example is linked in what you quoted, perhaps it might have been at least a little dishonest to keep pressing as you did, "Go ahead, you have all these links to posts. Certainly you can dig that up, right?"
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° a.k.a., the Sonohara principle:

    「What do you think a truly unusual life would be like? Something really unique. It'd be the kind of life where every single day, nothing new ever happened. Nothing changed. That kind of a life is truly unusual.」

    "Critical". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. 13 September 2021. Merriam-Webster.com. 14 September 2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critical


    [(cont.)]
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    [2/2]

    Because that's the thing, isn't it:

    And?

    You've provided a static object, a sosobra arrangement with no dynamic function; nobody can tell you what is awry about how it works because nobody knows how it works, and you are either unable or unwilling to tell us.

    Still, let's take a look at what you quoted:

    Look at Vociferous' refusal↑, and you'll see how it works: He won't provide any statistics, because ...
    ...he would be "happy" to see you put in the work to disprove a dysfunctional assertion. ...Remember, he's not going to support what he says because he thinks you should have to run down whatever information he demands.


    ([sic])

    There are a couple things, here. First is the linked refusal, which, as I observed, and you edited out, includes your own assertion↑, that "we should see similar stats by comparable socioeconomic class of every race". It is a convenient omission, as it spares you consideration of the point that your argument is fallacious, but while you're fallaciously refusing to bring those numbers you would be "happy" to see James R put in the work to disprove a dysfunctional assertion.

    The other thing is that your assertion, that "we should see similar stats by comparable socioeconomic class of every race", is another fantastic pretense of ceteris paribus; the implicit need for that artifice of all else being equal is what you cannot justify compared to history.

    Weirdly, or, perhaps, not, this has nothing to do with what it purports to respond to.

    I simply don't wallow in your straw.

    Meanwhile, you might recall that racism is in the Constitution; you are aware that the reason some effective Amendments pertain to race is because the parts of the Constitution we decided needed amending had to do with race.

    The simple fact is that I don't disentangle James' words; neither he nor I need to; he is not wrong.

    Yeah, well, funny thing about that ...

    ... er, never mind; different discussion for a different occasion.

    James and I have a long-running ... well, yeah, I guess you could call it a discussion of some sort ... about any number of these issues, and as much as I might have to say to him about this, that, or the other, you might wish to consider that you are one of the people whose behavior clarifies some of those considerations for him. I mean, sure, to the one, when he said↗ he "knew you had some crazy right-wing ideas" but "previously hadn't pegged you as an actual racist", I laughed; if I go looking for the memo, well, there actually is one.

    Still, between the idea that he's putting on one of his sniffy pretenses about not having pegged you properly, and the possibility that certain aspects of how these things work have somehow become a bit more clear, what you're giving him to work with is obvious. Yes, Vociferous, in your world, James is a racist; if he doesn't feel especially compelled to worry about that part of it all, don't wonder why.

    Reading comprehension would help. Here, for instance: "I didn't say 'biological' inherence," is fallacious, so following it with the admonition, "Try not to straw man while accusing others of straw manning," was pretty silly. The question at hand, after all, considered what you meant by "inherent", and if the context of your retort does not justify an inquiry about biological inherence, then, yes, we can agree you didn't say "biological" inherence, but inasmuch as you already reject the more appropriate consideration because it is a critical examination of history, neither do we have any other basis for discussing inherence; thus, the inherence you suggest remains a mystery, and neither does your protest clarify that point any further. This is, as I told James, an example of distracting threads by demanding others run around fulfilling obscure, poorly defined needs, i.e., trying to figure out what you mean by "inherent" when you say he implies "poorer socioeconomic status is somehow inherent to black people"; if he answers according to the most obvious meanings and implications of your words, he is going to be just as wrong as if he picked anything else to address.

    And he went there, to be certain, that "you try to pretend that race isn't an important social issue in the United States, and that it's essentially due to some innate deficiency of 'black people'"; and here you are, whining about "his screed in the CRT thread trying to convince anyone I'm racist with zero evidence".

    It's a lot of effort to change the subject: You had previously observed↗, "If white children are taught they are bad, simply from being born white, that is called racism." You were challenged↗ on this point: What is your example of this? The wage discrimination example is drawn from two↗ prior↗ posts in that thread. There isn't any real question about the history; Rizo v. Yovino, the case noted in the wage example, was decided in 2017↗. Arguing that there is no wage discrimination is a distraction; the actual question is akin to your own assertion about children being taught they are bad.

    In either aspect of the issue, either your example or consideration of my example, you have yet to answer. As I said, we are as such unable to establish the relationships between certain elements of your apparently fallacious argument, and you are either unable or unwilling to tell us. Think of it this way:

    Q: How does this make white people feel badly about being white?

    A: Because that's all those particular white people could come up with.

    There might be a reason people aren't offering a better explanation of how understanding history is supposed to make people feel badly for being white.

    I cannot omit the part that is not there, Vociferous. Not all classism is racism, but in this question of race and class, racism is classism. The "why" that is part of your "matter of class" is what is actually missing.

    Desperately making up straw men in order to put on that tone is neither honest nor helpful, Vociferous, and it really isn't too smart to put on such airs—

    —especially so shortly after quoting and making such effort to miss the point of what you have chosen to misrepresent and then demand. You certainly came through, though, pretty much as expected.

    [―fin―]
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Because for decades the unstated assumption was that people like him were on the top of the heap.

    When cops come charging into a crime scene, they see him, then they go after the black guys who must be the criminals.
    When two people get in a fight, the black guy is presumed guilty until proven otherwise.
    When there's a question as to who is the baseline, it's him, not the black family down the street. They are "inner city" types with "absent father" problems and a "provable increase in criminality."
    When there's an issue with discrimination, the issue is not that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race. The issue is "there's enough of them here now, so what are they complaining about?"

    Now that's starting to change. And that terrifies people like him. Because very soon he is going to be a minority in this country - and he will no longer have the assumption of superiority that he's benefited from for centuries. His whole world is going to change. The fact that a white cop could be sent to prison for killing a black petty criminal is terrifying to people like him.
     
    James R likes this.
  10. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Please, for the love of God, learn how to read. Your straw man "simply disagree" doesn't appear in the quote you purport to be responding to. Do I really need to explain to you how "simply disagree" and "simple disagreement" differ? Hint, one uses and adverb (qualifying how something is done) and the other an adjective (qualifying what something is). You know, basic grammar.
    You having not seen any black swans doesn't mean they don't exist. Very basic logic.
    Guilty cops, of any race, are often pretty transparently so, like shooting a fleeing suspect in the back:
    Or planting a weapon on a suspect:
    Not much to argue there, as everyone generally agrees these cops were guilty. Not many legal technicalities or obscene public ignorance of police procedures there.

    So many straw men. Police still make me nervous, because in my youth I sported a look that always drew negative attention. I knew that when, not if, I was pulled over, I'd be pulled out of the vehicle and have my vehicle and person searched and that I would be arrested for things that others would be released with a warning or citation over. I have been in jail before, where I had the most minor offense on the entire cell block. I have been mistaken for having a gun, luckily not by the officer. I survived all that by not resisting or showing any aggression.

    The black victims who identified the race of their assailants account for the veracity with any need to your little "Black people are scary" straw man. Or is that projection? Why does such a fact, presented without any editorializing, make you immediately jump to the conclusion that it's a "Black people are scary argument"? You trying to make someone else "account for it" would seem to be you dismissing the agency of Black people themselves. I can't "account for" what other people do, as they have their own agency and motives.
    There's also no accounting for you insisting on conflating disparate terms.
    If you can't differentiate a "quarter century ago" from today and don't know the history of drug sentencing (Black Leaders Once Championed the Strict Drug Laws They Now Seek to Dismantle↑), it's little wonder you don't understand something as basic as the null hypothesis. Again, the onus is on the CRT advocates to show how things are causally related. That they seem so incapable or unwilling to do so would seem to make my arguments for me.
    Only the lazy are going to fall for your lies. Where did you get this quote "Not all critical thought …"?
    Again, as I already replied to your footnotes, the lack of a thing is the null hypothesis, and you shouldn't be surprised if you get confused when you omit relevant parts of what you're quoting.
    Grammar lesson time. "Is" is present tense and does not apply to "history" (the study of past events).
    You can keep proclaiming your ignorance all you like.
    I already addressed this problem you have with missing the part you failed to quote. Third time now.
    Are you really completely ignorant of what concessions, and not, were made to bring the South under the agreed to authority of the Constitution that made the end of slavery possible?
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Nice try. Nice attempt at condescension and all that. Well done. Really good try.

    You're a lot more transparent than you think you are, you know. I know you well enough now to see through your evasions and attempts at distraction. I don't see much point in taking your bait when you presume to teach me English Comprehension. I see right through you.

    Why don't you just own what you write, rather than this constant attempt to back peddle whenever you're caught out?
    Yes, and there's often no widely-publicised record of their guilt that can be consulted to see what really went down, so they still manage to get away with it. Not so in the Floyd case.

    But you still haven't explained why you're so invested in this. Why do you have this desperate need to exonerate Chauvin? Care to share?
     
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Wow, that's some thick projecting you've got going on there. Chalk it up to Dunning-Kruger.
    Unlike you, who can't be bothered to support your own claims, I own everything I write. But with you and Tiassa obviously misquoting me, you're either playing dumb or not playing at all.
    Um, I just cited two cases for you. What, were videos not the *right kind* of "record of their guilt that can be consulted to see what really went down"? Did those cops "get away with it"? Or are you continuing to opine on stuff you refuse to even look at?
    You're projecting again. I just have an aptitude for law and hate seeing it or actual evidence misrepresented. Isn't that that same reason you engage with obvious crackpots on scientific subjects here? Or do you have some desperate need to, what, browbeat obvious incompetents?
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You don't.
    You aren't sufficiently literate (you use big words and technical labels, such as Dunning-Kruger, incorrectly), and you are still posting invalid arguments (that wouldn't work even if you had your facts straight, which you don't).
    And you don't post very many arguments - fewer than one per thread - apparently assuming that tangential personal attack, your standard go-to, is a form of argument in itself rather than a category of post that may or may not include some arguments.

    The kind of logical form you screw up most often is this one: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/38682/what-exactly-does-some-mean-in-logic . That's the one you bollixed when you were trying to defend the cop who put the gun in Floyd's face - (you actually posted some numbers that you thought showed a racial disparity in violence toward policemen (they didn't) as a defense for the cop's disproportionate readiness to pull a gun on a black man.)

    You have plenty of company in this rhetorical pit trap you chose. You exemplify it, to a degree (not as well as Schmelzer, but we ascribe that to your possessing information about US politics) If we ever need yet more evidence confirming the ubiquity of systemic racial bias in the US, we can always compile a selection of posts like that from you. For an implicit bias video we can point to your seeing Floyd "lunging" and out of control in those videos I linked for you.
    Done and dusted, many years ago. That's what CRT was invented for.

    If you had any idea what CRT was you would know what it was for already - it's the central and organizing effort behind its adoption by all serious intellectuals in the field, after all. (You would also stop using terms like "CRT advocate" and the rest of the wingnut rhetorical approach invented by the propaganda operations of the Republican Party.

    One might expect someone with an aptitude for the law to have noticed what has been happening to creationists and fundies and voting fraud ranters who present such rhetoric and arguments in a courtroom, and reconsidered their habits of yak; but better late than never, eh?)
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2021
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    [1/2]

    The number of times, over the years, people have raised the point of simply disagreeing, or just asking questions, or some such, when the behavior at hand is cheap recycling or repetition of obvious crackpottery, makes the question of "simple disagreement", as our neighbor has it, seem like something of its own vapid trope.

    And while the living reality varies between individuals, what we usually have in these cases is someone who sympathizes with the notorious or some aspect of notoriety; more neutrally, we might say one somehow agrees with an idea, and when the infamy of that belief or view starts to become known to the individual, things happen. Perhaps that still seems complicated, but I also confess it's a bit tricky describing the obvious when uncertain what part someone doesn't understand.

    †​

    And at this point, time-out: Now and then you refer to your time here as if it is significant, and it's not that it's not, but hang on. Because we've disputed, as both staff and members, notions of just asking questions, simple disagreement, and sometimes I'll even use words like cultivate. Vociferous and others like him conduct themselves as they do because they are never obliged to change. In a recent round of our own disputes, James, you asked me what I do as a moderator, and it was kind of a complicated moment, considering that the answer was already known. But it did, in its way, remind me to wonder what, in your nearly twenty years here, you have learned. And, again, we happen to be at one of those intersections.

    It's true, I wasn't joking when I told Vociferous there was a memo; indeed, the pegging joke wouldn't have worked without it. To the other, don't get me wrong, we were discussing something more broadly at the time, and the point I referred to is one of several from Memo #3270 that are still relevant nearly three years later.

    Related issue: If you don't have a Twitter account .... Right, don't go getting one just because; Twitter isn't healthy. Long story short, the connection to our moment is that by the time I got a Twitter account, I already had over a decade experiencing the evolution of certain disingenuousness that one must learn to recognize and overcome in order to survive popular social media. It's true, a lot of what we have seen here, over the years, is apparent in the Twitter experience. Think of it like a recurring coordinate of politic and behavior. By the time I got around to Twitter, I had already seen a lot of it at Sciforums; and the time since, experiencing both, has not failed to teach me a few things as well as reveal myriad new questions.

    And there is a part of me that might digress through a few episodes over time, but that becomes a complicated expression of a simpler question. The contrast is an easier question, to wonder if Sciforums is your only social media experience. One of the old episodes has to do with a particular former member's drive-by topic posts, and the threshold when you finally had enough. In our moment, now, the question would be whether or not you ever recognized what he was doing, which was a basic, known form of political trolling that turned out to be effective in no small part because people allowed it to go on. And so in that way, too, it is easy to wonder what you've picked up along the way. I know that covers a lot, but I actually think you're oversimplifying. It's not that you're necessarily wrong; nor is Billvon wrong about how change terrifies traditionalists.

    But gather up your scraps of memory and history and understanding, James. This isn't really about you; we just needed the setup before diving headlong into the steaming heap of meta.

    †​

    As Billvon↑ has it, the unstated assumptions of American society are changing, and that scares many people witless. That truth isn't new; consider how far we are through a particular looking glass: In Sciforums terms, it's been fourteen years since American conservatives lost the economy, and the idea that conservatives were coming apart at the psychological seams after their cultural, economic, and international agendas collapsed isn't new, here. Speaking more broadly, we can mark the Gay Fray, if we want, and its arc opening in the late Eighties into the Nineties; even these, though, arose from disgruntled anti-abortion activists looking for something to do.

    It's just as true in society as it is for Sciforums that some arguments are hard to justify rationally. If we think back to Roe v. Wade, that is a history running nearly half a century in which one side of a political and legal dispute—and its significant portion of the body politic—is allowed to just make it up as they go. And as birds of supremacist feather gather together, we should remember the implications. Yes, they're tired of being rejected over and over and over again; they've been at it so long they believe their own caricatures of their opponents and have started fighting back against straw men of their own construction.

    This isn't really about "simple disagreement", and hasn't been for a long, long time. And I don't mean just Vociferous. I want you to think back. You can go into our Gay Fray thread and find us allowing vile bigotry. It's not that I support or agree with those arguments; nor was it any concern for self interest. Rather, I already knew that if it came right down to it, I couldn't win that fight because that was simply how things were. Even back then, the conservative argument was nothing more than supremacism comfortably ensconced behind prejudice as it fronted dehumanization and denigration. These years later, that hasn't changed. What has changed is that homosexuals won that fight, and others who know all too well about not being able to do the right thing because society won't tolerate it have noticed. In the American context, we can even say this intolerance and dehumanizing hatred precedes the Republic itself.

    What is a simple disagreement? Tim's or Kettle? Pineapple on pizza? Sure, there are more complicated simple disagreements, but let us consider how our neighbor presents the question of simple disagreement:

    Oh, I get how the ideological have to see simple disagreement as evil. That's how they maintain their ideology. You have to pretend (or convince yourself) that I'm bad, without ever being able to point to anything actually racist or bigoted. You just proclaim it enough that you believe it's true.

    (#740↑)

    He opens with a straw man, "the ideological have to see simple disagreement as evil", and while it is easy enough to observe the point that traditionalism is intimately familiar with characterizing dissent and disagreement as evil, and, moreover, the prospect that it is "how they maintain their ideology", it is more useful in our moment to consider the point that the entire bit is a fallacy: "simple disagreement", as he presents it, is a fallacy. Moreover, he continues with an implicit demand, "without ever being able to point to anything actually racist or bigoted"; additionally, part of this demand is an isolating effect you're familiar with, detaching a discussion from any other—in this case, the work he would be happy to see Bells do is essentially summarize other discussions so that he can relitigate them, as such, by simply dismissing them. As much as anyone should run to and fro for the sake of his satisfaction, we need not wonder what he would accept.

    We can also look at his point about the Supreme Court and an abortion law out of Texas. In this case, "simple disagreement" might be something like whether or not abortion should be legal. The question of a "miscarriage of justice" is considerably more complex, and becomes, in his challenging formulation, an ill-defined straw fallacy requiring what sort of hither and yon involving specialized historical discourse about American case law and court conduct. However, if we consider that the Court departed from its own established precedent in the Texas case, this basic observation of complexity beyond "simple disagreement" is not unique in trying to figure out what Vociferous is on about.

    Consider that as our neighbor explains, "Even here, I haven't once justified Floyd's death. It was a completely avoidable tragedy", he then goes on to declare, "I just think there's no actual evidence of any intent to kill him. I'd have the same opinion if Floyd were white."

    And that is what it is, but it's also a straw fallacy; cf. Minnesota Statutes 609.19 ("Murder in the Second Degree") § 2 ("Unintentional murders")↱. When Vociferous says, "no actual evidence of any intent to kill him", it doesn't matter "if Floyd were white"; the statute does not require intent to kill. 609.19 § 2(1)—

    causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting …

    —is pretty clear about this point, and if we need to be even more precise, the State of Minnesota↱ charged Derek Michael Chauvin with "Second Degree Murder - Unintentional - While Committing a Felony", listed 619.19.2(1).

    [(cont.)]
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    [2/2]

    We might also consider Vociferous'↑ formulation: "I'm not sure why it's so hard for some people to understand that, yes, Chauvin was found guilty of murder, but no, I don't agree with that verdict." In addition to the Murder 2 charge that does not require intent to kill, Chauvin was also convicted per 609.195 ("Murder in the Third Degree")↱, which explicitly qualifies, "without intent to effect the death of any person", and 609.205 ("Manslaughter in the Second Degree")↱, which describes "culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another", and is the felony required to fulfill 619.19.2(1).°

    Consider the tone Vociferous shows Bells: "Completely transparent"? His "very obvious position"? It also raises a question of the context of "simple disagreement". It's not a basic question of whether one thinks Chauvin is guilty or not, but the very obvious position that Vociferous does not want Chauvin to be guilty, and this is the point of disagreement, simple or otherwise.

    It's not a rational position; it's logical within its boundaries, but those boundaries are fallacious. You are not wrong when you say Vociferous wants a certain truth. And here, perhaps, we can circle back 'round to the prospect of someone who sympathizes with the notorious or some aspect of notoriety. We might also reiterate the point that some arguments are hard to justify rationally. And, per both a general form as well as the particular iteration before us, we might recall the basic observation that sometimes the purpose is to disrupt discussion.

    He still doesn't seem to have answered your question↑, about defining class. He pretends to challenge it, but amid all the truculent noise Vociferous has been making, I don't see an answer. And recalling the question of how his argument measures up to your expectations, well, this was part of the point in asking. His response at #747↑ is entirely fallacious, and at this point we ought not be surprised; sometimes, someone's purpose is to disrupt discussion.

    Observe that if we attend his words, Vociferous is pretty clear: It's not just simply wanting Chauvin to be innocent, he needs to blame George Floyd for "a completely avoidable tragedy". Inasmuch as he fulfills the thread title, Vociferous is also exemplary: This is what it takes to make the case for Chauvin. Our neighbor's history↗ reminds the low ethic that would justify certain behavior, and we would do well to remember that anytime we might choose to address his excremental behavior.

    †​

    Recently, we have at least a couple times considered the question of what value someone brings discussion or community, and I don't actually object to this standard. But I would also note we've talked before about bad faith, and insofar you prefer moderators not account for good and bad faith about someone's behavior, we can also acknowledge that a standard of what value we think someone adds to the community is at least as subjective and even easier to abuse.

    But I mention it because in questions of bad faith behavior at Sciforums, we have before us an example of what our standard brings. And when I might remind what we have cultivated, this is part of what I mean: Sometimes, someone's purpose is to disrupt.

    If there is a joke about an old memo, it is also true this behavior has been going on the whole time. The most obvious pathway to address our neighbor's behavior is to consider his quite obvious appearance of bad faith. If we fret reasonably about the potential for suppressing political views, what do we think we're protecting? And what is that hypothetical range compared to actual observable effect, in which Vociferous' arguments really aren't so different from what we considered last year, when this sort of stuff apparently wasn't so much about white supremacism, but someone being not smart enough to know better.

    Another way to put it is that over the years, some people's behavior hasn't been so much a question of disagreement, simple or otherwise, but, rather, disruption, and for whatever reason, you've been okay with that under certain circumstances, and have even been known to show greater concern at some indignity you perceive about people's responses.

    In this particular thread, we actually have an occasion of a member twice↑ labeling↑ Vociferous as an "abusive internet troll", and if none of us in charge seem to have done anything about that, I wouldn't actually expect much confusion about why we didn't reproach the attack. Well, okay, that is, I wouldn't expect much confusion about why we didn't admonish Billvon. But in that case, that we don't act against the hit because we do not think it is a spurious attack, what are the implications in re the abusive troll? And even if I don't expect much confusion about not acting against Billvon, we should probably cover the point about not acting against an unfounded insult because that's how Sciforums rolls, and observe that saying it's false but acceptable reminds the point about what we cultivate. Nonetheless, we are still left with the question of not disagreeing with Billvon's assessment, yet permitting abusive troll behavior to continue as it has, and we even have the record reminding Vociferous has been at this for years. If Cineas°° suggests some supremacism is often infantilized and given room, we might consider that Sciforums is not some mystical exception.

    Historically, even back when we still entertained pretenses of rational discourse and intelligent community, there was always some stuff that just never needed that kind of support. It wasn't like we were protecting something revolutionary, or nurturing something struggling for representation, in doing so; we were protecting irrationality, when we get right down to it, but it was also broadly establishmentarian or institutionalized irrationality. More directly, pretenses of rational, supportable discourse make a fine pulpit for wagging a finger at fortean believers, certain conspiracist tinfoilers, and theists, but have long been unfair to expect of other irrationality.

    And look at this thread; if we spend more time talking to and about the "angry, abusive internet troll", that actually is part of the point. Consider how this is not any sort of rational argument he can "win"; in a way, what this behavior seeks is to "not lose" by simply dragging the whole issue 'round familiar mulberries.

    If, for instance, we recall↗ a notion that "it is important to pay attention to what people actually write, rather than to try to guess at motives or to impute 'bad faith' due to some kind of bias", we can observe at least two relevant points, that paying attention to what people say and write is part of how we discern bad faith, and also that we see in our neighbor's conduct what propositions require such shelter.

    And if we consider that some arguments seem unable to find good faith, perhaps there is a reason. To suggest that a general question is somehow silenced if we reject such combinations of dubious behavior and irrational argument is incorrect unless we accept a priori that the general question can only be addressed through disreputable pathways.

    Our neighbor is so brazen because he can be.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° A short form of the point about Chauvin's conviction can be found in the "Chauvin Verdict Thread"↗, a discussion drawing less attention over the period, but one we also know Vociferous participated in. Toward this, we might consider whether the difference of listing and linking the statutes has any real effect on Vociferous' argument, since he already knew this. Or, maybe, he didn't; the idea of a passionate but uninformed advocate is not unfamiliar, either in↗ general↗ or in its consideration of our neighbor's↗ behavior↗, including the point of being a passionate advocate who just happens to be unaware of whatever, and a reminder that sometimes, someone's purpose is to disrupt discussion, and neither is this new behavior, either from Vociferous or at Sciforums. Oh, right: The point about what Chauvin was actually charged with, including the question of intent to kill, was noted in #5↑, above, i.e., in the present thread. At some point, the prospect that Vociferous somehow didn't know the charges when he wrote #740 is kind of silly.

    °° qtd. in #3660564 ("I Think of All Those Republicans …"↗)

    "Complaint". State of Minnesota vs. Derek Michael Chauvin. 3 June 2020. DocumentCloud.org. 26 October 2021. https://bit.ly/3i1EVUW

    Office of the Revisor of Statutes. 2020 Minnesota Statutes. 2020. Revisor.mn.gov. 26 October 2021. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/
     
  16. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    It took me a while to accept that logic doesn't need to be meaningful; but it follows from the inevitable conclusion that a computer program is a set of logical operations (with "sequencing" defined on it) which has no requirement that its output be meaningful, or even "useful" (whatever that means, heh).

    Charles Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll, tried hard to point out this incontrovertible fact in his own way, but somehow the adults of the day missed it and consigned his works of fiction to the children's section.

    And, well, here we are.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Over the course of several years, what nobody has managed to do is explain how this question of Black on Black actually relates to police brutality or white supremacist violence; indeed, the only common aspect is trying to deflect away from another question in order to complain about something wrong with Black people.

    More directly, consider #714↑: When you ask in #747 (qtd. above), "Why does such a fact, presented without any editorializing, make you immediately jump to the conclusion that it's a 'Black people are scary argument'?" you seem to be forgetting the rest of the statistics you presented in #714. Additionally, we can follow that track back to #711↑, in which you asssert a particular statistic "makes black men, objectively, more dangerous to officers", i.e., 「Black people are scary」.

    As I reminded James↑, if we spend more time talking to and about the "angry, abusive internet troll", that actually is part of the point. To wit, if we're revisiting your behavior, at least we aren't discussing anything useful. As an example:

    The bit about Black communities and tough-on-crime policies hardly new↗; maybe you should catch up.

    For instance, Chauncey DeVega↱ observed, in 2016, when recalling the Clintons and the '94 crime bill:

    As political scientist Michael Fortner argues in his new book, what he terms as "the black silent majority," has long-supported a "get tough" approach to crime and law enforcement. This is practical self-interest: if violent and other types of street crime are often more common in poor, low-income, and working class communities―and America is a race and class segregated society―then black and brown folks who live in those spaces are more likely to be victims of crime.

    And as Jesse Singal↱ recounted in 2015, in trying to take a piece out of Black Lives Matter:

    While Fortner argues that it isn't quite fair to say that the old penology had failed — to the extent treatment-centered approaches were tried in mid-century New York, they were likely doomed from the start by a lack of funding and improper implementation — once this attitude had hardened, it pushed Harlemites to seek enforcement- and punishment-heavy responses to help stabilize their neighborhoods ....

    .... Fortner's point is not that these laws were a good thing — he acknowledges the tremendous harm they did, and writes with regret about their heavily racialized impact. But he said he's frustrated by a narrative that robs African-Americans of their agency, that acts as though black concerns over crime are somehow illegitimate. He also emphasized that while he thinks the white-black aspect of the Rockefeller laws has been overstated, institutionalized racism is in fact a key part of this story, simply because black people, thanks to racist housing practices, didn't really have the option to leave Harlem; there was no black equivalent to white flight out of distressed areas. “Residential segregation trapped people — both people who had jobs and those who didn't — within the same social environment,” he said. “And then you had crime and drugs and a host of vices manifest themselves, and the black middle class and working class have little recourse because they can't move. So they have to confront these difficulties, right? And over time they grow more punitive in their approach to these challenges.”

    These years later, we ought not be surprised to find you blaming Black people for using the tools available to them. As DeVega explained:

    Black policy makers, other elites, and on the ground activists did not unanimously support the 1994 crime bill. Jesse Jackson opposed it. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it with much reluctance. But this was balanced by how other black leaders and influential voices in the African-American press supported the bill. The 1994 crime bill was not imposed from above on compliant, weak and complacent black Americans who lacked agency. No, the Violent Crime Control Act outcome was a coincidence of interests that came together, however tenuously, and which would eventually result in serious negative externalities that continue to shape American politics and society today.

    And, despite the politics of the moment, certain facts remained "fixed and certain":

    The American criminal justice system is both racist and classist. It punishes black and brown people disproportionately, gives them harsher sentences for the same crimes that are committed by white defendants and is one of the primary means through which political, social, and economic inequality are reproduced in American society.

    The United States is now, fully, a carceral society — one where the moral hazard of profit-seeking, privatization and corporate-owned prisons have incentivized the arrest and imprisonment of millions of people (many of whom are innocent). For example, locales such as Ferguson, Missouri are run like debt peonage schemes from the era of Jim and Jane Crow and the end of Reconstruction where black people are targeted for harassment by police in order to line the latter’s wallets and the white community’s coffers ....

    .... But as we reconsider and debate the legacy of Bill and Hillary Clinton and the 1994 crime bill, the words of actor, artist and hip-hop legend Tupac Shakur resonate in a surprising and unexpected way:

    “The same crime element that white people are scared of black people are scared of. While they waiting for legislation to pass, we next door to the killer. All them killers they let out, they're in that building. Just because we black, we get along with the killers? What is that?”​

    And then, what the hell is this:

    Seriously? Okay, follow the bouncing ball:

    • Right before you wrote that ("Only the lazy …"), you quoted my post.

    • Read that quote, namely the part, that reads, " So, go back to the second quote in your post ('Not all critical thought …')".

    • Where did I get the quote, "Not all critical thought …"?

    • That part referred to you quoting me. See #744↑ above; you had asked, in #737↑ where you denied any history. I answered, and told you where to look. Naturally, you're confused.​

    Except you're not really confused, just stalling. After all:

    That might well be the dumbest word game in the history of dumbassed word games at Sciforums.

    This has nothing to do with disentangling James' words or not.

    Remember? "Inextricably linked", as he said? "Impossible to separate", you complained, and "permanent or characteristic"? Yes, and I pointed out that it's in the Constitution, and some Amendments have to do with race because what needed Amending has to do with race.

    That's how it's linked.

    The "concessions … made to bring the South under the agreed to authority of the Constitution that made the end of slavery possible" are whatever they are per whatever the hell you're on about, but compared to the racism written into the Constitution that led to the war that resulted certain Amendments pertaining to race, it's unclear what your latest change of subject has to do with anything.

    All the running around in circles, yeah, we get it. That's all you have. And it is hardly unusual↗ that you would illustrate the low ethic that would justify white supremacism.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    DeVega, Chauncey. "Racist then, racist now: The real story of Bill Clinton’s crime bill". Salon. 16 April 2016. Salon.com. 15 November 2021. http://bit.ly/23EWPRE

    Singal, Jesse. "The Black Activists Who Helped Launch the Drug War". New York. 27 September 2015. NYMag.com. 15 November 2021. https://nym.ag/3cgkXT6
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Chauvin Files to Change Plea; Guilty Plea Likely for Federal Charges

    Via Associated Press↱:

    Former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin appears to be on the verge of pleading guilty to violating George Floyd ’s civil rights, a move that would remove him from a federal trial but could significantly increase the amount of time he’ll spend behind bars.

    A notice sent out Monday by the court’s electronic filing system shows a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday for Chauvin to change his not guilty plea. These types of notices typically indicate a defendant is planning to plead guilty, though nothing will be official until it happens in court.

    Derek Chauvin, convicted and sentenced in Minnesota for the murder of George Floyd, had previously entered a not guilty plea for three federal counts of civil rights violations under 18 USC § 242, "Deprivation of rights under color of law"; two charges pertain to the death of Mr. Floyd, and one involves a separate incident from 2017, when Chauvin choked and beat a fourteen year-old boy, as well as injuring him further pressing a knee to the boy's neck when he was handcuffed and observably not resisting.

    By claiming responsibility, Chauvin can reduce his federal sentence. Though rare, Osler said he could also arrange to serve his sentence in the federal system, which could benefit him since he has been in solitary confinement in Minnesota. Brandt added that Chauvin would still have notoriety in the federal system and might still need to be segregated.

    “I’m guessing he actually negotiated something that would allow him to see the light of day before he leaves the earth,” Brandt said.

    But the federal system has no parole, so even with a reduced federal sentence, Chauvin could spend more time behind bars.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Forliti, Amy. "Chauvin expected to plead guilty in Floyd civil rights case". Associated Press. 13 December 2021. APNews.com. 13 December 2021. https://bit.ly/33sYW28
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Justice awaits her hour:

    The federal trial for three former Minneapolis police officers charged with violating George Floyd's civil rights as Derek Chauvin pinned the Black man's neck to the street is expected to begin Monday with opening statements, after a jury of 18 people was swiftly picked last week.

    J. Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao are broadly charged with depriving Floyd of his civil rights while acting under government authority. All three are charged for failing to provide Floyd with medical care and Thao and Kueng face an additional count for failing to stop Chauvin, who was convicted of murder and manslaughter in state court last year.

    Legal experts say prosecutors have to prove Kueng, Lane and Thao willfully violated Floyd's constitutional rights, while defense attorneys are likely to blame Chauvin for Floyd's murder, which was videotaped and triggered worldwide protests, violence and a reexamination of racism and policing.

    Floyd, 46, died on May 25, 2020, after Chauvin pressed him to the ground with his knee on Floyd's neck for 9 1/2 minutes while Floyd was facedown, handcuffed and gasping for air. Kueng knelt on Floyd's back and Lane held down his legs. Thao kept bystanders from intervening.


    (Forliti and Karnowski↱)

    The last mile shall be weary, and there is no Promised Land, this time; there is only Justice.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Forliti, Amy and Steve Karnowski. "Trial to begin for cops accused of violating Floyd's rights". Associated Press. 23 January 2022. APNews.com. 23 January 2022. https://bit.ly/3tPik4x
     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    To late for Justice. That should have been present (administered) at the start

    All which can be administered now is punishment and warnings

    Punishment for those who did not provide justice at the start which can as a bonus serve as a warning to others please treat others with justice at all times

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Thus spake Justice:

    Derek Chauvin was sentenced to just more than 20 years in prison Thursday, nearly seven months after he pleaded guilty to federal charges that he violated George Floyd's civil rights when he knelt on Floyd's neck for 9½ minutes as he was detaining him in May 2020.

    Before handing down the sentence, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson called Chauvin's treatment of Floyd "offensive" and "unconscionable."

    "I really don’t know why you did what you did. But to put your knee on another person’s neck until they expire is simply wrong and for that conduct you must be substantially punished," the judge said.

    Federal prosecutors had asked Magnuson to sentence Chauvin to 25 years, on the high end of the 20- to 25-year range of the plea agreement, saying Chauvin abused his authority as a police officer and acted callously.

    The defense had asked for 20 years, saying Chauvin was remorseful for what he did and that he has accepted responsibility.

    Magnuson sentenced Chauvin to 21 years in prison, with credit for the time he has already served, bringing his sentence to 20 years and five months.


    (Silva↱)

    Mr. Chauvin, convicted in Minnesota for the murder of George Floyd, is already sentenced to over twenty-two years↱. The federal civil rights sentence is intended to send some manner of message, but we can only learn its meaning according to what the future brings.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Chappell, Bill. "Derek Chauvin Is Sentenced To 22 1/2 Years For George Floyd's Murder". National Public Radio. 25 June 2021. NPR.org. 7 July 2022. https://n.pr/3Rlsbbq

    Silva, Danyella. "Derek Chauvin sentenced to just over 20 years for violating George Floyd's federal civil rights". NBC News. 7 July 2022. NBCNews.com. 7 July 2022. https://nbcnews.to/3PaIgin
     

Share This Page