Dolphins announce they will be staying inside for anthem

"Ronnie Bass wrote:

Lets not take this thread really off-topic by debating what happened to George Floyd, there is a 100% chance of this getting ugly.

But isn't this one of the incidents being protested by NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem? Isn't a dialogue what's being called for?

And in all honesty, I don't believe a discussion about George Floyd would ugly. I'm one of the staunchest conservatives here and even I am calling for Chauvin's prosecution as I illustrated above.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

But isn't this one of the incidents being protested by NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem? Isn't a dialogue what's being called for?

And in all honesty, I don't believe a discussion about George Floyd would ugly. I'm one of the staunchest conservatives here and even I am calling for Chauvin's prosecution as I illustrated above.

Most conservatives are, when video first surfaced I was kinda stunned how many of my most ardent pro-cop friends were calling for Chauvin's head on a stick, no one was defending his actions. This should have been a turning point (and hopefully still is) but I fear the radical left blew that chance up with the riots and it's a shame.

"Finatik wrote:

"The system does this to me", "Some group oppressed me", "I'm not being treated fairly"....all a bunch of excuses to me since I was also in the gutter once. So sorry if I don't have a lot of empathy for all the hard luck stories. I lived it.

I'm not saying to be sorry for anyone- hard luck story or not. But you of all people know how hard you had to work despite your environment to live a better life. I mean, was that common in your neighborhood- kids working 2-3 jobs to pay their way thru college? You know as well as anyone that you were an exception to the rule because of your work ethic and desire.

I pretty much have the same story- dropped out of college when my dad almost died and I needed to help with the bills, but I had always had 1-2 jobs since the day I was 16. I did have a stable middle class home though in a low crime area and a quality high school education...which some would call a "head start" on your experiences.

The truth here though is that this isn't about you or me...we turned out fine in life. Far too many don't make it to where we are though and something has to change to flip that trend. It's not a knock on you because you did EXCEPTIONAL with limited resources, it's a knock on the communities because more didn't follow in your footsteps (or even know that it was an option in the 1st place).

In other words, your path in life is extraordinary...it's tough to hold everyone to those standards as kids and expect them to thrive.

"Ronnie Bass wrote:

Most conservatives are, when video first surfaced I was kinda stunned how many of my most ardent pro-cop friends were calling for Chauvin's head on a stick, no one was defending his actions. This should have been a turning point (and hopefully still is) but I fear the radical left blew that chance up with the riots and it's a shame.

But, just for sake of discussion, IF it turns out that Chauvin did not kill him by kneeling on his neck, but that it was the fentanyl and meth, doesn't that change everything? It would then mean that the police did nothing wrong, and therefore all the rioting and looting was not justified. How can a guy dying from a drug overdose be a turning point regarding police brutality?

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-cold-hard-facts-about-americas-private-prison-system

here is an opinion piece on it.

I should have been more clear in the sense that they have a guarenteed occapancy rate that the state has to pay.

Unless you want a link to the prison here that is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/

Here is a link to the numbers:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=G7000

In the 2016 election cycle, private prisons gave a record $1.6 million to candidates, parties and outside spending groups. That was nearly triple what they'd given in 2014 and more than double their contributions in the 2012 presidential cycle. Most of the increase came in the form of donations to outside groups, and Geo Group was responsible for most of that: It gave $300,000 to super PACs backing various Republican presidential candidates, including one backing now-President Donald Trump.

"Ronnie Bass wrote:

Most conservatives are, when video first surfaced I was kinda stunned how many of my most ardent pro-cop friends were calling for Chauvin's head on a stick, no one was defending his actions. This should have been a turning point (and hopefully still is) but I fear the radical left blew that chance up with the riots and it's a shame.

That's a huge part of the problem- people on either "side" can be just in their reasoning, but end up being 100% wrong due to their actions in seeking justice/reform. This whole thing is a power keg and so many are dying to "light the match", so I'm really glad we are having these conversations in a mostly civil manner. I'm very passionate about this stuff.

"resnor wrote:

But, just for sake of discussion, IF it turns out that Chauvin did not kill him by kneeling on his neck, but that it was the fentanyl and meth, doesn't that change everything? It would then mean that the police did nothing wrong, and therefore all the rioting and looting was not justified. How can a guy dying from a drug overdose be a turning point regarding police brutality?

Did nothing wrong? If a cop was kneeling on your neck, are you going to go with "he did nothing wrong"?

"resnor wrote:

But, just for sake of discussion, IF it turns out that Chauvin did not kill him by kneeling on his neck, but that it was the fentanyl and meth, doesn't that change everything? It would then mean that the police did nothing wrong, and therefore all the rioting and looting was not justified. How can a guy dying from a drug overdose be a turning point regarding police brutality?

Regardless of verdict, I don't think this conversation dies down any time soon....especially with the COVID restrictions around the globe. For instance, I'm soooooo ready to take a cruise and sit my fat ass on a pool deck eating gourmet burgers and steaks, but that's no longer a reality. So I think we all have a lot more time to find things to say and talk about social causes.

If it does come out with an innocent verdict or charges get dropped, I think this conversation gets A LOT worse. The anger is based on perception and George Floyd was just one in a long line of questionable deaths recently. Again, I back the blue 100%...but I think we've passed that tipping point where these types of incidents will be tolerated without protests, violence, etc.

"KeyFin wrote:

That's a huge part of the problem- people on either "side" can be just in their reasoning, but end up being 100% wrong due to their actions in seeking justice/reform. This whole thing is a power keg and so many are dying to "light the match", so I'm really glad we are having these conversations in a mostly civil manner. I'm very passionate about this stuff.

It's not black and white and that's the mistake everyone makes when it comes to condemning the other side because today's climate is so polarized that critical thinking gets pushed aside and blind demonization takes its place.

"Ronnie Bass wrote:

It's not black and white and that's the mistake everyone makes when it comes to condemning the other side because today's climate is so polarized that critical thinking gets pushed aside of demonization takes its place.

I completely agree- both sides have valid viewpoints and I can make an argument for either one. My personal beliefs fall somewhere in the middle though...we have to support the police while also standing by communities as well.

"resnor wrote:

But, just for sake of discussion, IF it turns out that Chauvin did not kill him by kneeling on his neck, but that it was the fentanyl and meth, doesn't that change everything? It would then mean that the police did nothing wrong, and therefore all the rioting and looting was not justified. How can a guy dying from a drug overdose be a turning point regarding police brutality?

Absolutely not. Flloyd may have been the match that lit the fire but the wood and kindling have been piling up for decades. There would sadly have been another face and another name. We know this because there are so many other faces and so many other names. This one had video, that's all.

"KeyFin wrote:

I'll be honest- my opinion has 100% changed over the past few months. I'll always be on law enforcement's side but at the same time, we have to change a system that's set up to target poverty-stricken areas where people just don't have a fair chance at living the American Dream. It took some hard conversations for me to realize that I was only seeing part of the picture and ignoring everything else.

"resnor wrote:

Of course, those poverty areas are targeted because they are high in crime. It's like a never ending cycle. But, I think drug laws are a huge problem there.

Check out the Harvard study I posted in post 120. Everyone in this thread should check it out.

"Ronnie Bass wrote:

Did nothing wrong? If a cop was kneeling on your neck, are you going to go with "he did nothing wrong"?

I mean, if that is something they are trained to do, and it's part of their approved way of handling it, then what did Chauvin do wrong? Legally speaking. I don't think they should train officers to restrain by kneeling on their neck, but they do. If the coroner is saying he didn't die from asphyxiation, and there is no bruising on his neck, and Chauvin was following the department training, then how are we saying it was police brutality? The coroner saidc that if they had simply found Floyd on the street, it would be no question a drug death. So, were we all played by being shown that video, with no context of knowing these things that I just said?

I just don't see how a guy dying from a drug overdose while police were following training protocol equals police brutality.

"Puka-head wrote:

http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/Massachusetts-Racial-Disparity-Report-FINAL.pdf

According to 2016 data from the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, 655 of every 100,000 Black people in Massachusetts are in prison. Meanwhile, the state locks up 82 of its white citizens for every 100,000 who reside in the state. While an eight-to-one racial disparity might seem like a lot for one criminal justice system, nationwide, African Americans are imprisoned at almost six times the rate of white people. So, in 2016, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Ralph Gants asked Harvard researchers to “take a hard look at how we can better fulfill our promise to provide equal justice for every litigant.”

"People of color in Massachusetts are substantially more likely to be arrested and charged with a crime at all, and thus are more likely to be convicted and incarcerated on average even though conviction and incarceration rates are similar across race once charged"

"Even after accounting for case severity and a host of other factors, Black and Latinx defendants charged with drug and weapons crimes are more likely to be convicted and sentenced to incarceration and they also receive substantially longer incarceration sentences than similarly situated White defendants. Taken together, these results indicate that disparities in cases that involve serious drug and weapons crimes drive the overall disparities in incarceration in the Massachusetts criminal system."

"Superior Court cases with Black and Latinx defendants are more likely to include a charge that carries a mandatory minimum incarceration sentence. Indeed, cases involving Latinx defendants are twice as likely to include a mandatory minimum charge than cases involving White defendants. White defendants are also proportionally less likely to ultimately receive a sentence that is consistent with the mandatory minimum, indicating that they are more likely to be given a plea deal that does not include the mandatory minimum charge."

Those are a few excerpts. Conclusion was the system is racist from top to bottom. But we know that. Now there is a report from Harvard proving it.

Are they comparing to arrests in the same areas? I mean, are they comparing minority arrests in like Boston to white arrests in Montague? There will be a difference. Or are they comparing white arrests to minority arrests in Boston? Stats never tell the whole story. Are they simply looking at overall stats with zero regard to where the suspects are being arrested?

"resnor wrote:

I mean, if that is something they are trained to do, and it's part of their approved way of handling it, then what did Chauvin do wrong? Legally speaking. I don't think they should train officers to restrain by kneeling on their neck, but they do. If the coroner is saying he didn't die from asphyxiation, and there is no bruising on his neck, and Chauvin was following the department training, then how are we saying it was police brutality? The coroner saidc that if they had simply found Floyd on the street, it would be no question a drug death. So, were we all played by being shown that video, with no context of knowing these things that I just said?

I just don't see how a guy dying from a drug overdose while police were following training protocol equals police brutality.

1) A 9-minute leg choke is not proper procedure in any US police department.
2) Once he became unresponsive, it was all four of those officer's jobs to provide medical aid.

Like I said earlier, maybe #1 didn't kill him...but it's hard to debate #2 when you have three officers hovering over you while you're dying. Both #1 and #2 are unlawful and grossly neglect- there's just no way around that.

It could be that this is not ruled a murder, but that officer's career is over and he will likely go to jail on manslaughter or some type of neglect charge. Following the oath of duty is a huge deal for officers and it comes with very heavy consequences when it's broken.

"KeyFin wrote:

1) A 9-minute leg choke is not proper procedure in any US police department.
2) Once he became unresponsive, it was all four of those officer's jobs to provide medical aid.

Like I said earlier, maybe #1 didn't kill him...but it's hard to debate #2 when you have three officer hovering over you while you're dying. Both #1 and #2 are unlawful and grossly neglect. There's just no way around that.

There is a massive difference between neglect and murder.

Can you state with 100% certainty that Chauvin violated policy? Honest question. Up until like two weeks ago I was arguing that putting a knee on a suspect's neck was obviously going outside of his training.

"resnor wrote:

Are they comparing to arrests in the same areas? I mean, are they comparing minority arrests in like Boston to white arrests in Montague? There will be a difference. Or are they comparing white arrests to minority arrests in Boston? Stats never tell the whole story. Are they simply looking at overall stats with zero regard to where the suspects are being arrested?

It was a study of Massachusetts, not Boston. Boston is mentioned but those statistics are statewide from what I read.

"Puka-head wrote:

It was a study of Massachusetts, not Boston. Boston is mentioned but those statistics are statewide from what I read.

Right, that's kinda what I figured. But looking at stats from urban areas, which are higher crime rates than rural areas, and are often higher density of minorities than rural areas, isn't really a fair comparison, is it? Like cops in Brockton are dealing with different crime and criminals than cops in Montague. What police experience is going to affect how they do their jobs. So, I don't necessarily see the value in comparing crimes and arrests that occur in vastly different areas. Know what I mean?

Just like with the Tannehill arguments, there are a ton of variables at work for why the statistics are how they are. It's not a clear cut case that the system is racist.

"resnor wrote:

There is a massive difference between neglect and murder.

Can you state with 100% certainty that Chauvin violated policy? Honest question. Up until like two weeks ago I was arguing that putting a knee on a suspect's neck was obviously going outside of his training.

I can state with 99% certainty that he violated policy either at the local or state level...my 1% doubt is that they could have trained him in the academy as an "approved move in certain situations", but the academy is not going to call it a standard procedure. Because here's what happens- if the police force said they approved that and it gets proven illegal, then every inmate in the state that's been arrested in the past 20 years is filing for a retrial and/or filing lawsuits saying that it happened to them as well. There's a ZERO PERCENT chance this falls back on the academy because it creates complete chaos...it's much easier to pin it on the "rogue cop".

This article from a few months ago might help- Fox Memphis

It says that while "neck restraints" are legal, what Chauvin did was never taught at the academy. Most officers would think of a neck restraint as a headlock...which DOES NOT mean choke hold (like I mentioned in my personal experiences earlier). The only time that wouldn't apply is when someone's coming at you with lethal force...like with a knife or a crowbar. Then you can do whatever you have to do in order to protect yourself. However, once the threat has passed, you have to release immediately. I don't think any of those criteria were met even if they do somehow call the move "legal".

There is a huge difference between the neglect and murder, of course, but I think he's going to be found guilty of one or the other (or a lesser homicide charge like manslaughter). If he's found innocent on all counts, good gosh, the previous riots are going to look tame compared to what follows.

"KeyFin wrote:

I can state with 99% certainty that he violated policy either at the local or state level...my 1% doubt is that they could have trained him in the academy as an "approved move in certain situations", but the academy is not going to call it a standard procedure. Because here's what happens- if the police force said they approved that and it gets proven illegal, then every inmate in the state that's been arrested in the past 20 years is filing for a retrial and/or filing lawsuits saying that it happened to them as well. There's a ZERO PERCENT chance this falls back on the academy because it creates complete chaos...it's much easier to pin it on the "rogue cop".

This article from a few months ago might help- Fox Memphis

It says that while "neck restraints" are legal, what Chauvin did was never taught at the academy. Most officers would think of a neck restraint as a headlock...which DOES NOT mean choke hold (like I mentioned in my personal experiences earlier). The only time that wouldn't apply is when someone's coming at you with lethal force...like with a knife or a crowbar. Then you can do whatever you have to do in order to protect yourself. However, once the threat has passed, you have to release immediately. I don't think any of those criteria were met even if they do somehow call the move "legal".

There is a huge difference between the neglect and murder, of course, but I think he's going to be found guilty of one or the other (or a lesser homicide charge like manslaughter). If he's found innocent on all counts, good gosh, the previous riots are going to look tame compared to what follows.

For manslaughter, they'd have to prove that Chauvin's actions contributed to his death, right? So if there was no bruising on his neck, and they say it wasn't asphyxiation, but it was the drugs in his system that killed him, could they get him on manslaughter? And, if the evidence ends up showing it was the drugs, and people riot, that's kinda crazy. But that's what I meant earlier, that people came to conclusions based on the video, without having all the other facts, and now we can't unring that bell. Floyd is a major case in this movement against police brutality, and while Chauvin definitely has a past history of this, this case might not actually be what we were presented, and it's going to be messy now.

This is what the anti-police movement is reaping. The sheriff has called out Le Bron James to match the reward money for the shooter. He's been so vocal on police misconduct and defunding the police. Let's see if he willing to call out the protesters side on this assassination attempt and stop the violence.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/two-deputies-helped-each-other-after-being-shot-in-compton-sheriff-says-as-search-for-gunman-continues/vi-BB192wN9?ocid=hplocalnews

"resnor wrote:

For manslaughter, they'd have to prove that Chauvin's actions contributed to his death, right? So if there was no bruising on his neck, and they say it wasn't asphyxiation, but it was the drugs in his system that killed him, could they get him on manslaughter? And, if the evidence ends up showing it was the drugs, and people riot, that's kinda crazy. But that's what I meant earlier, that people came to conclusions based on the video, without having all the other facts, and now we can't unring that bell. Floyd is a major case in this movement against police brutality, and while Chauvin definitely has a past history of this, this case might not actually be what we were presented, and it's going to be messy now.

You're really trying to hard to defend the undefendable, the cop was a major reason this man is dead, but let's let him walk.

"resnor wrote:

For manslaughter, they'd have to prove that Chauvin's actions contributed to his death, right? So if there was no bruising on his neck, and they say it wasn't asphyxiation, but it was the drugs in his system that killed him, could they get him on manslaughter? And, if the evidence ends up showing it was the drugs, and people riot, that's kinda crazy. But that's what I meant earlier, that people came to conclusions based on the video, without having all the other facts, and now we can't unring that bell. Floyd is a major case in this movement against police brutality, and while Chauvin definitely has a past history of this, this case might not actually be what we were presented, and it's going to be messy now.

Both the official and the private autopsies concluded Floyd's death was a "homicide". There is some discussion of the details. Bottom line, he was killed.

Arguing the details of this particular case and trying to take away from the issue by blaming Floyd for his death is...I don't even know what it is. Irrelevant? Disingenuous? Obtuse? Incredulous? How bout just wrong. This is one case out of thousands over decades. Trying to say the whole movement is invalid because Floyd was high when he was killed by a police officer? We can do better.

And it's a distraction from the discussion of what the Dolphins, the NFL, and Americans across the country are DOING about it. There really is no denying the issue. People trying to deny the issue are the ones who are ok with people of color being treated differently by law enforcement seems to me.

I'm a fat old white dude, I have no concept of what it's like to worry about being pulled over for "driving while black, or brown". But I have experienced racism while living in the Pacific Islands, Hawaii and others where white people are a minority and are treated differently. Not to this extent, but it's there. I learned enough to know (I did already) that racism is the HIGHEST form of ignorance there is and when matched with it's brother intolerance becomes evil in a blink.

So the curtain has been pulled back, again. Are we just going to fight to get the curtain closed so we don't have to look at the ugliest side of our culture, or are we going to work for the change our fellow human's have been fighting for the last 100 years?

"Ronnie Bass wrote:

You're really trying to hard to defend the undefendable, the cop was a major reason this man is dead, but let's let him walk.

Not at all what I'm saying. But this is why I said earlier it's really hard to even have a conversation. If you even try to talk about the facts that go against the narrative, people act like you want police brutality to continue.

"resnor wrote:

For manslaughter, they'd have to prove that Chauvin's actions contributed to his death, right? So if there was no bruising on his neck, and they say it wasn't asphyxiation, but it was the drugs in his system that killed him, could they get him on manslaughter? And, if the evidence ends up showing it was the drugs, and people riot, that's kinda crazy. But that's what I meant earlier, that people came to conclusions based on the video, without having all the other facts, and now we can't unring that bell. Floyd is a major case in this movement against police brutality, and while Chauvin definitely has a past history of this, this case might not actually be what we were presented, and it's going to be messy now.

Manslaugher simply needs the officer to have a contributing factor in the death, which I think they can prove easily (by saying he didn't provide aid to someone dying right in front of him). Murder would mean that he straight-up killed him.

I'm honestly surprised that they're not pursuing manslaughter charges on all four officers since they clearly messed up. States also have different variations of a "derelection of duty" types of charges that basically say that you were grossly negligent while wearing the badge...I don't know if that state has it or not, but that would be an obvious conviction if they pursued it.

I don't think Chauvin meant to kill him, but that's never really a factor in murder/manslaughter trials anyway. If your actions led to the outcome, then you're guilty.