Turns out the dead man had a violent criminal past
George Floyd had ‘violent criminal history’: Minneapolis police union chief
The head of the Minneapolis police union says George Floyd’s “violent criminal history” needs to be remembered and that the protests over his death are the work of a “terror…nypost.com
a career criminal !!! blacklivesmatter...yeah right.
You do realize that this social distancing is affecting mental health right? I have not been able to socialize with my friends for months now. So I want to listen to music to relax, and I get presented with this issue that IS REMOVING A FEATURE that I PAY for.
Actually I was talking about this guy late last month and not Dylan Roof.
Peter Manfredonia, 23, is accused of killing two people and kidnapping a woman in Connecticut.
An investigator being briefed on Peter Manfredonia's appearance noticed him walking just feet away | CNN
An investigator who was being briefed on Peter Manfredonia's description and height on Wednesday night turned and noticed the murder suspect just 20 feet away, leading to his capture, Connecticut State Police said.www.cnn.com
But the issue is still the same.
We peacefully capture mass murderers and spree killers that are white, but a guy passing a bad bill is abused.
What am I missing?
Also like I said, if someone here in California is suspected of passing a bad bill; IF the police are called, they interview the person.
They may look in the person's wallet to see if they have more.
They ask what stores they have been to and where they may have gotten the bad bill.
They do not arrest the person unless they have a wallet full.
They didn't know his past and to use his past for justification is just trying to steer the narrative.
There is no justification for what the police did and we can't even agree on that. And when I say "we", I mean apologists for the police.
Charges elevated to 2nd degree murder for the cop.
Three other cops at the scene have been charged for aiding and abetting murder.
This is the correct response. If you like what they're doing then keep it going. If not cancel it. If someone wants a music app to not show music and pay for it then who am I to say it's not okay. It's a free choice and Apple is doing what it feels the customers want. As we all know they don't always get it right.
I do very much — I have had police in my family and I stand by my comments and they aren't made lightly. I have dealt with Police aggression all my life and I do not live in a high crime area. That is a generalistic narrative that maybe your reality's perspective, but it is not widely transferable.
I wasn't intending to make it sound easy. Worthwhile endeavours are rarely easy but that doesn't mean we should abandon them as realistic and necessary goals. It's important, and the police are needed to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us as they chose that position, we did not choose to be at odds with them. I would much rather be in a position to put my trust and faith in those we task to serve and protect.
We expect them to do better in their vetting, while also reaching out to groups that don't fit that description so that future officers expect a better environment in which to keep the peace.
And we are here trying — but like an alcoholic in AA — progress cannot be made if there is no acceptance of the problem in question, nor honest movement in making amends for past grievances. it's great That Floyd's killers have all been charged now. That's a start, but what about Breonna Taylor — the 8 officers have yet to be charged for her murder, and that was almost three months ago — so the public needs assurances that this is not an action because of marches, but the beginnings of a systemic overhaul for the soul of the police force in general, as well as the public's perception of it. Our communities have seen retaliation after authorities have been held to task. Hell, pretty much all major cities are seeing that play out live on our screens right now. The majority of protesters are attempting to do so peacefully — it's not our job, but we know we have to do out part — but the police at all levels have pushed back at our expectation of them doing their jobs correctly. They need to lead the process of change as the public has carried generations' experiences where the police have let them down. We have done this before, the onus is on them to show that this time it will be different.
You are stating murder specifically when the conversation — and the data I provided — was about the topic at hand (excessive use of police force). George Floyd was not suspected of murder and yet still died of excessive force by the police, so that right there shows his very egregious death wouldn't even be considered in your numbers, undermining your point. People are dying when interacting with the police under the suspicion of petty to non-existing crimes.
That's assuming several factors, not least of which is if the charges were valid as that data shows arrests, not convictions. Leading further to serial targeting of individuals to make things stick. We all know there are corrupt cops and there are many instances where individuals who cannot afford proper representation on bogus crimes plead to lesser ones they still didn't do out of fear (and mistrust) that the system will still convict them unjustly, as many have had before.
There are anarchists and criminals on both sides looting and burning cities — it isn't protesters. Protesters are peacefully protesting and getting pepper-sprayed and beaten by overzealous police while trying to exercise the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of speech. I highly doubt that the four officers would have been charged had there been no protest. Breonna Taylor's 8 killers have still not been charged and it has been almost three months since she was murdered in her home by police.
You miss the point completely — systemic change doesn't start on the bottom rung but though change at the top and clear messages sent down. PD's all over the nation are littered with well-intentioned rookie cops who quickly find out that they cannot affect department-wide change and that making their bones usually means showing you won't rat out your fellow cop. The ones that got elected to create change have been long demanding it — and have gotten pepper-sprayed for their stance.
Here's the thing though, we should be able to call the cops if we think a crime has been committed. I think it's safe to say that 1) no one would expect the store owner to handle this on his own as it could escalate easily, and 2) it should be an expectation that the police handle these situations with authority, but proportionate to the context of the matter at hand. As a potential victim, I shouldn't have to factor in if the cops will handle the suspect (remember, since we have no idea where the bill came from he is just in possession of what he likely thought was a real bill) into whether we should call the cops at all.
www.nbcnews.com
I am still on a complimentary sub but I did write to Tim expressing my feeling that Apple and all the other corporations should be more consistent with their social justice campaigns. Else they just seem like disingenuous opportunists. It really would take a concerted effort to tackle global issues.
Of course, I was taught that civil discourse is the first second and third step in a debate, and that name calling and slander means you can't form an actual argument. I appriciate that things can be heated especially on an important topic like this but I want to change opinions not just be "right"
None of that speaks to the validity of the stops, charges of convictions — as I have indicated, it is easy to look at those numbers as actual guilt and it is not the case, many plead to cases they did not do because they fear injustice for large crimes. None of this also speaks to the manner and tone in which the suspect is interacted in. We have now seen many times how something casual escalates — depending on how the suspect is approached and what methods used in restraining them — leads to a completely different interaction than if an officer handles things proportionately to the gravity of the call — George Floyd, and Eric Garner are just two examples. When this is accepted into reality, that then pre-escalates future interactions due to the fear of the potential mishandling of power and authority by first responding officers. Then you get back up arriving and they take cues from the first responder. The reason I say all this is because these are nuances lost on a data point such as numbers arrested. Not all arrests go down the same and if you are in a group that expects harassment as opposed to one that doesn't — the arrest go down very differently.
Her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, was there. And he actually made a 911 call after the raid, telling the dispatcher, “I don’t know what happened … somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend.” They were plainclothes officers and did not announce. Furthermore, not only did they have a generic warrant that shouldn't have applied to Taylor's home (the basis for the warrant was not corroborated by the witness used to gain it), but the suspect and accomplices they were looking for had already been in custody.
They weren't as they did not announce. Had they announce then Walker would not have shot back. He had no record and was by all accounts a law-abiding citizen.
It was illegal. The judge still offered it anyways based off of bad information that was never corroborated. it was based on the home receiving lots of packages through the mail. When they re-interviewed the carrier, he said he was never consulted by the officers and there was nothing suspicious about it — it was online purchases one would expect as people were staying home during the pandemic. The victims and the assailants had nothing connecting them other than being Black and the information the illegal warrant was based on was fraudulent.
I can appreciate that but I disagree — they went fishing off an illegal suspicion and the only thing tying them together was they were also black. Guilt by association is bad enough as it is, guilt by assumed association got them killed.
No — they cannot. Their opinions are ignored, they are told to get with the program and while you yourself can do the good you can do in your individual patrols, there is no way you are influencing any sargent 10 years — who sets the tone for their team — or the general culture of the cliques that are formed over years of looking the other way. Their needs to be a greater fear of accountability, less protection when someone gets out of line, and more of a connection to the community they are patroling. New recruits will not enact that. that just is not based on reality. That is not to say I don't want new recrutes with that mindset — obviously, I do — it will just never be enough to affect change.
What if I used a different word? What if I used the term prejudice rather than racism? Here is the thing — I don't think cops hate black people — some sure, but not all — I think it is a Blue Sheild Prejudice in two parts. First, that generationally — cops have been handed down who expect crime to come from in particular areas and I think that's born of prejudice. My dad used to be a self-employed home renovator that hired help when he took big jobs. I remember one day him talking to a guy while I sat in the van — this guy was making his case to have my dad pick him up for a job that was coming up. When it wrapped up, they parted ways and my dad got in the van with me. Turned the engine over to drive away and says to me " that's not happening". I go "Really? Seemed like you were getting along." He said "Never hire a guy with an ear-ring — they're lazy." that sticks with me to this day because it was one of my first examples of how someone can appear to be really nice to you and yet think you are capable of something you have never shown any tendency to do just because of a thing that is completely unrelated. To me, that is how a lot of cops think as they have built up prejudice in their career and have licence to act on it with little oversight as their brothers in blue will have their back. Especially the young ones that want acceptance.
As I mentioned above, it is not just if they look like you, it is the histories of their interactions and the connection to the community. The cop can be as melenated as can be and it doesn't affect the interaction unless the approach from the officer is one of de-escalation and with proportionate authority applied to the call in which they were requested. They see the shield and the potential for harm — beyond skin tone.
I really doubt whatever email or mailing address you used was directly to Tim Cook. Apple is a corporation and like any other corporation their main goal is to make money. Everything they do is to further that point. I'm just saying his social justice warrioring here is to make money and his lack of social justice warrioring about China is to make money. People get upset when corporations do that but there is nothing wrong with this. It's not a charity
I never said otherwise. As a business owner I know “business is business”. But I also think these campaigns ring hollow when they shy away from big issues because they are afraid to take risk. For example Apple is all about gay pride except in China and the Middle East. If these are things are really what the business believes in, then own it.
Maybe they're all about gay pride because that attracts gay customers in the USA. In other countries where it might be frowned upon perhaps they figure it'll hurt sales. While Tim may have personal beliefs I don't think the corporation has any beliefs other than sell stuff.
