Calling All Liberal Race Baiters

[Immanuel Can]

No. It's often conscious, and it's a basic of survival.

It WAS the basis of survival. A few thousand years ago.

And today. You're evading. And no wonder...

And...where was that evidence of GF racism? You forgot to add it.

Why are you still Race Baiting instead of focusing on the problem?

Red herring.

Where's your evidence?

[Skepdick]

You don't know that. All you know is that a man died, and that he was already OD'd on fentanyl. That's what you know.

You don't know that a police officer stood his neck for 7 minutes and 46 seconds?

You don't know that two independent coroners concluded that while GF had high levels of fentanyl in his system they are NOT saying that's what killed him?

[Skepdick]

You're evading.

Where's your evidence?

[henry quirk]

the surest way to minimize bad cops is to strip away immunities

in 'murica, cops, on average, have a year of training before they hit the streets...and, throughout their careers, and as they rise in the ranks, they have on-goin' training: so more training and education won't solve the problem of bad cops

prejudices can't be trained or educated away, and bigotry is hard to quantify...most folks are bigoted; it either dominates them or it doesn't...if purity of perspective is gonna be a requisite for any endeavor, no one gets to do squat

no, the solution is simple, and sidesteps all the well-intended but useless strategies to nullify racism or train around bigotry: if all are held to the same standard, if all face the exact same set of consequences when they do wrong, then most of the perceived problems go away

joe cop can be as bigoted as he likes, but -- if he offs a black man becuz of that prejudice -- then he's prison-bound

no insulation or buffer ought be afforded him

the agenda-driven will still kvetch, of course: but they'll have to dig deeper to justify that kvetchin'

point of clarification...

if he offs a black man becuz of that prejudice

almost impossible to prove

what is possible to evidence is the necessity of an action

did circumstances justify the tasing, the shot, the chokehold, the knee on the throat?

let a jury decide

[Immanuel Can]

You don't know...

Red herring.

Evidence of racism, please.

[Skepdick]

Evidence of racism, please.

Who's talking about racism, you silly Race Baiter?

Focus on the problem, not the language used to describe it.

The problem needs solving, irrespective of the "cause". Be it racism, poor discipline, deviance or unicorns.

[Immanuel Can]

Evidence of racism, please.

Who's talking about racism...

Read the OP.

Your evidence, please?

[Skepdick]

Read the OP.

Your evidence, please?

I read the OP. Which is why I am talking about the problem and NOT "racism".

On the other hand YOU are talking about racism (despite your initial suggestion) effectively derailing the discussion away from police violence and towards semantics.

Time we all stopped talking about "race." It was a dumb idea from the start.

Make up your mind.

[Immanuel Can]

I am talking about the problem and NOT "racism".

Which "problem"? You don't even know there is one.

[Skepdick]

Which "problem"? You don't even know there is one.

Q.E.D

Mr Can is arguing that the status quo is perfectly acceptable. No recognisable moral concerns in so far as he's concerned.

A moral optimum (by his standards). And I am probably abusing the word "standards" here.

[commonsense]

We’ll also need to change the behavior of the good cops...

Why? They're "good." Do you want them to become "less good"?

The 3 cops who watched their detainee being murdered are examples of so-called good cops.

[Immanuel Can]

Which "problem"? You don't even know there is one.

Mr Can is arguing that the status quo is perfectly acceptable.

I'm arguing you can't even identify what you're talking about. That's all. You want to say "racism," but you know you can't, because you have no evidence. You were full of bluster and nonsense from the start.

[Immanuel Can]

The 3 cops who watched their detainee being murdered are examples of so-called good cops.

"Murder"?

Do you know a detainee was "murdered"? That requires intent. And "good"? Who said that?

But your hypothesis, then, has to be that the officer involved planned to kill "a black man," or GF personally, and then went out and did it deliberately. Is that the version of events you're spinning?

As for the other officers, don't you think it possible that they could have been, say, "incompetent"? Or perhaps "overwhelmed by lack of understanding of what was happening?" Could they have been "badly trained," or "rookies without enough experience to handle a complex situation," or maybe just human beings who froze and didn't know what to do? Is it not even possible that nobody involved intended to "murder" anyone at all, or even thought that GF was doing more than being stoned out of his gourd, and lying about what was happening to him?

In short, isn't any alternate explanation even plausible?

How have you proved that there was murder, that the three cops knew that's what was happening, and that they just stood by and watched? Or are you just spinning a version of events you don't KNOW is true, but would LIKE to believe is true?

Murder is a legal matter already. And we already have laws that are pretty much as stringent as can be against that act. So we surely don't need more on that, unless you now want to push for the death penalty, perhaps.

[henry quirk]

We’ll also need to change the behavior of the good cops...

Why? They're "good." Do you want them to become "less good"?

The 3 cops who watched their detainee being murdered are examples of so-called good cops.

chauvin and his compadres haven't been tried yet...premature to call what happened murder (as legal construct or moral wrong)

intent is key, as well as whether the move used by chauvin was permitted

[Skepdick]

I'm arguing you can't even identify what you're talking about. That's all.

But I am doing precisely what you are accusing me of "not doing" !?!

I am identifying that in the 8 minutes and 46 second video something is happening that OUGHT NOT be happening.
I am identifying that the events taking place violate society's objective moral principles.

It's you who can't identify that! It is you who can't recognise a problem.

Recognition happens before definition.

You want to say "racism," but you know you can't, because you have no evidence. You were full of bluster and nonsense from the start.

If I wanted to say "racism" I would've said it. Why do you keep talking about racism despite your insistence that we should stop talking about it?