Oooh, this thread is a doozy, even for DU.
Caliman73 (7,620 posts)
3. Agreed. Chauvin is definitely a marker.
I am know that I am biased, but it is difficult to see how reasonable doubt could have been introduced by the defense that I observed through the trial. The prosecution put on a masterful case.
Masterful, except for witnesses contradicting each other, witnesses humiliating the prosecution and causing them to look like they were about to shit themselves, and not having a consistent theory of how Floyd died.
From the masters of false equivalence, we bring you the next stupid post:
Star Member Withywindle (9,319 posts)
4. I saw a tweet from a doctor about this that made a very good point
You know who else often has to make life-or-death decisions very quickly on the job? Medical professionals. If a doctor or nurse grabs the wrong piece of equipment, or the wrong type of medication or what have you in a panic, and someone dies because of that? They face consequences. Maybe not criminal conviction, but very likely hefty malpractice suit and loss of a license if it's really bad.
The difference? The medical professionals themselves generally are not in situations in which
their own life, or the lives of the public at large, are on the line.
Star Member StarfishSaver (14,308 posts)
32. It's happened before
Cops have been known to say things before shooting people that turn out to have been a ruse.
"Stop resisting arrest!" and "He's going for my gun!" are common ones.
I'm not saying that's what happened here. But I also don't just accept at face value what she said and what she now claims just because she says happened. How much longer are we going to give the police a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve - especially after how often we've seen that lying and covering up is not an unusual phenomenon?
He demonstrably resisted arrest.
Star Member StarfishSaver (14,308 posts)
38. Yes and no
Every case has to be judged on its own merits, but they cannot be judged in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, too many people are all too willing to put on blinders and pretend that each case has no connection to any other larger set of circumstances.
That makes it easy to dismiss the shooting of Jacob Blake as justified and not based on a y racial bias because he didn't "comply" and then dismiss the shooting of Adam Toledo because he complied but could have had a gun in his hand when he did exactly as he was told and then dismiss the murder of George Floyd because he had a record and then dismiss the murder of Duante Wright because he had a warrant and then dismiss the shooting of Rayshard Brooks because because he shouldn't have tried to run away, etc. ...
And If you ignore the fact that this keeps happening over and over and over again and black men are shot for all kinds of excuses, most of which are completely contradictory ... And if you further ignore the fact that white people in similar and worsr situations are not shot down in the streets this way, it's really simple to claim that each individual shooting is justified and understandable.
Only if you pull back and look at all of this in context can you see the real picture.
'Excuses' are made, because most of alleged "extrajudicial murder" of a black person by a police officer turn out to have some backstory that we aren't told, or are bunk altogether. Jacob Blake was not trying to break up a fight, nor was he unarmed, nor was he just trying to leave when cops shot him. Breonna Taylor was not murdered in her sleep by officers who didn't announce their presence, nor were these officers at the wrong address. Rayshard Brooks was shot when he stole an officer's taser, and tried to wield it against the police, not because he tried to flee. The officers didn't face charges because it was a lawful use of force. And the George Floyd case is
at the very least much more complicated than the public was led to believe.