Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[troutman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ah, the classic "I'm sorry if you were offended" non-apology. Wonderful.

And what exactly is the proper context of the article he posted? Nobody should care a lick about George Floyd's history. Nothing Mr. Floyd may or may not have done in the past, nothing, justifies his murder at the hands of the Minneapolis PD in that moment.

How can you say something is "factual", but not your opinion?

[MarchHare]

Something just occurred to me. When Rob Laidlaw wrote that he shared "a published article about George Floyd’s history" that was "just a statement of facts written by a reporter (not me)," is he talking about that infamous Candace Owens victim-blaming piece that was making the rounds a few days ago? Because if so, that would elevate this to an entirely different level of stupid.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Something just occurred to me. When Rob Laidlaw wrote that he shared "a published article about George Floyd’s history" that was "just a statement of facts written by a reporter (not me)," is he talking about that infamous Candace Owens victim-blaming piece that was making the rounds a few days ago? Because if so, that would elevate this to an entirely different level of stupid.

Why stop now? They're on a roll!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Here's the NYPD pay https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/caree...-benefits.page

You are already throwing money at police. Its not like social workers or whoever else are going to cost a ton more than that.

Given the cost of living in New York City, that five-year salary is roughly the equivalent of making C$48,600 a year in Calgary. I'd hardly call that 'throwing money' at them.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Itse

For those wondering what "community-led policing" is, AFAIK Seattle is one go-to example in the US on that philosophy. I don't honestly know much about the details, but if I've understood correctly, they've been very happy with the results, and crime statistics are down.

Google would likely help with the details.

I get Seattle news regularly being in Victoria , I wouldn't say there record with treating minorities are great especially Indigenous people.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I get Seattle news regularly being in Victoria , I wouldn't say there record with treating minorities are great especially Indigenous people.

Dunno about that.

Just wanted to point out an example, since people were wondering what it meant.

I remember them being very happy originally, but now that I think about it, it that was after the Rodney King incident (?) when they moved to that.

So quite a lot of time has passed since.

In any case it's still a common example mentioned when the US police talk about community-orientation.

[MarchHare]

John Oliver had a very good piece last night that spoke to exactly what people mean when they say "defund the police". It most definitely is not lawlessness and anarchy. I can't post the video here, but if you have HBO (which I believe is available in Canada via Crave) you should watch the segment.

Vanity Fair has an article about it here: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...und-the-police

And finally: defunding the police absolutely does not mean that we eliminate all cops and succumb to the Purge. Instead, it’s about moving away from a narrow conception of public safety that relies on policing and punishment and investing in a community’s actual safety net—things like stable housing, mental health services, and community organizations.”

In other words, it's about taking a portion of current police budgets, money which is used to re-actively respond to crime, and re-allocating it to community services that pro-actively prevent crime.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

And while I think exploring those options is worth a shot, I have a few objections.

First, just politically, this is just handing an election issue to the GOP for november, especially since everything is going to be boiled down to its simplest possible form (as it always is, but even more so) so that it can fit on a bumper sticker. I'm pretty worried that 2020 is going to continue down its current horrendous path by having COVID and the police issue turn the corner at exactly the wrong moment to benefit Trump and get him back into the White House.

Second, it's fairly speculative, and it comes across like the people who say "just invest in green energy". Yeah, exploring those avenues is good, but it's not like you can just flip that switch and suddenly your problems are all solved. You're talking about something that could make a small, incremental difference that, over a long period, will hopefully increase in its effect.

Third, as I think I've mentioned before, I'm always skeptical about knee-jerk reactions to big moments in the public zeitgeist. This seems like the sort of thing that is an absolute prime candidate for pilot programs before jumping in feet first, as Minneapolis prepares to do. You say it doesn't mean lawlessness and anarchy, but there are degrees of lawlessness and anarchy, and frankly I don't think you or I have the first clue what's going to happen if they fully commit to this approach. I would hope things will go relatively smoothly, my instinct is it'll be more or less fine, but if I lived there I'd be pretty nervous about being a sociological guinea pig.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by corsihockeyleague

and while i think exploring those options is worth a shot, i have a few objections.

First, just politically, this is just handing an election issue to the gop for november, especially since everything is going to be boiled down to its simplest possible form (as it always is, but even more so) so that it can fit on a bumper sticker.

law and order!


(I'm not able to capitalize "law and order" for some reason. But for the record it should absolutely be all caps)

[getbak]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Something just occurred to me. When Rob Laidlaw wrote that he shared "a published article about George Floyd’s history" that was "just a statement of facts written by a reporter (not me)," is he talking about that infamous Candace Owens victim-blaming piece that was making the rounds a few days ago? Because if so, that would elevate this to an entirely different level of stupid.

This is apparently a screencap of his post:

Spoiler!

Looking at the responses to his message on Facebook, it's very much a "sorry if I offended you" apology with no recognition that he shouldn't have posted it in the first place because it's completely irrelevant to the the issue at hand.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

(I'm not able to capitalize "law and order" for some reason. But for the record it should absolutely be all caps)

It's a weird quirk of the forum that if your post is entirely in caps, the forum will convert it to all lower case. But if there is one lower case letter, it won't. So I can easily post "LAW AND ORDER!" in here because of all the lower case letters in this post, but yours wasn't allowed to. Not sure what the reasoning for that is.

[woob]

It's to keep grandpa from coming on here and yelling at us in all caps.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's a weird quirk of the forum that if your post is entirely in caps, the forum will convert it to all lower case. But if there is one lower case letter, it won't. So I can easily post "LAW AND ORDER!" in here because of all the lower case letters in this post, but yours wasn't allowed to. Not sure what the reasoning for that is.

I BELIEVE IT'S TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM POSTING PAGE-LONG RANTS IN ALL-CAPS THAT WILL JUST ANNOY PEOPLE AND PROBABLY START (OR ESCALATE) A HUGE ARGUMENT.

OF COURSE, ALL IT TAKES TO CANCEL IT OUT, IS A SINGLE LOwER CASE LETTER IN THE POST.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by getbak

I BELIEVE IT'S TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM POSTING PAGE-LONG RANTS IN ALL-CAPS THAT WILL JUST ANNOY PEOPLE AND PROBABLY START (OR ESCALATE) A HUGE ARGUMENT.

OF COURSE, ALL IT TAKES TO CANCEL IT OUT, IS A SINGLE LOwER CASE LETTER IN THE POST.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

WELL OKAY BUT THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE AN EASILY AVOIDED METHOD TO MISS MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMEDIC SHENANIGANS
s

[activeStick]

Warning for language. I don't understand how someone can hate black people and supporters of equality so much. This guy is so angry - blows my mind.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1268445494251909123

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Warning for language. I don't understand how someone can hate black people and supporters of equality so much. This guy is so angry - blows my mind.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1268445494251909123

About 150 or so people showed up for peaceful protests at Red Deer's city hall this Saturday. The only time I drove by there were guys - looking very much like this - fingering the crowd and shouting the same nonsense as they passed by in their trucks.

I don't understand why it was necessary, or how anything other than hate or a confused sense of masculinity would motivate it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Here is the thing, I understand the need and benefits of Unions, but they've far outgrown their purview and mandates and effectively become mafias.

We dont want Police officers being constantly thrown under the bus after every incident or controversy but we dont want them to be immune either.

And lets not pretend otherwise. The protection offered to Police under their Unions and CBAs is effectively immunity. They are genuinely 'Above the Law' and it took an entire country rioting to get a murdering Police officer charged.

There has to be balance and at the moment there isnt.

I haven’t posted in a while but the hyperbole in this post is too ridiculous to not comment on.

The labour movement has always been one of the biggest proponents for racial equity and civil rights in general. I don’t know how one could try to argue that getting rid of or reducing Unions wouldn’t do more harm than good for any people who’ve been unjustly marginalized by society.

Getting rid of police Unions does nothing to address the systemic issues that leads to officers being acquitted of criminal charges for their misconduct. The Unions don’t control the laws that lead to these acquittals. I’m not even sure that the Unions would be involved at all in the event an officer were to be criminally charged as that would not be a labour relations matter but that’s a whole other discussion. In any event, Union or no Union, until the laws are changed officers will continue to avoid being held accountable.

You’re scratching the surface of the problem so instead of taking the opportunity to grandstand with the Fox News or Rebel media flavoured anti-Union rhetoric of tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and factually inaccurate statements, try to keep digging and you may actually come up with some solutions to the real problem.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I don't understand how someone can hate black people and supporters of equality so much. This guy is so angry - blows my mind.

That kind of hate isn't innate to humans. It's learned. Or more accurately, it's taught. It's the simple strategy of divide and conquer (per wikipedia, "In politics, the concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discord among the people to prevent a rebellion against the elites or the people implementing the strategy. The goal is either to pit the lower classes against themselves to prevent a revolution, or to provide a desired solution to the growing discord that strengthens the power of the elites.").

It's a strategy as old as recorded history. America's ruling class, who are predominantly old rich white men, purposely use their power and influence to foster racial hatred because they don't want poor white men to realize they have more in common with poor black men than they do with white billionaires. So Republicans like Ronald Reagan use racist terms like "welfare queens" to rile up hard-working white people making $8/hr so they'll be pissed at those people who receive government assistance instead of directing their anger at the people who are truly exploiting them.

This is nothing new. President Johnson called attention to it over 50 years ago, and low-income white Republican voters are still falling for it.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I don't understand why it was necessary, or how anything other than hate or a confused sense of masculinity would motivate it.

spoken to above.