Exactly, that's the point. Would you prefer the institutional approach and just have the city pay Floyd's family with money from the school budget?
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
I mean, the Supreme Court's ruled that proof of innocence isn't enough to get a new appeal for a death penalty conviction. Vote was how you'd imagine. Add in more innocent people getting convicted due to bogus police confessions and...
Is there any other job in the world you would apply "employee did crappy job, so employee should personally pay money to the injured party" standard?
The medical field?
Policy Research
NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.
www.ncsl.org
Well, in my country, you tend not to be allowed to sue people in this way on top of a criminal prosection. They've been convicted, and therefore justice has been met.
The issue to some extent depends on the circumstances and where the responsibility lies. If a cop kills someone completely out of line with the PD, sue the cop. If you can demonstrate that the PD's systems were so lax or corrupt that it allowed cops to do the wrong thing, sue the PD.
If a cop did not follow procedure, evidence gained from it should be inadmissable, and the cop should get a bollocking off his superior for screwing up a case and the defendant shouldn't be disadvantaged by tainted evidence. That is the appropriate remedy. If the evidence was accepted in court, then whose mistake was that? One way or another, probably not the cop's.
Yes, several. Even ones we don't hold to a higher standard because of their implicit authority needed for their job.
You are dramatically missing the point. Chauvin was individually liable for an institutional problem, both he and the system were at fault, and thus both he and the system needed to be indicted over it. This standard does not dissolve when you go to something more "petty", like violating a person's rights.
No, but it is the cop's fault for violating someone's rights. That should probably deserve more than a stern talking to, because we've seen what "stern talkings to" do for curbing police violations.
Starts with "F" and ends with "all".
Police champion your method and fight, harshly and sometimes illegally, against being held personally responsible to the public they wrong. I get the feeling that if they feel threatened by it, it's probably a better avenue to curb their behavior.
Look, I can say Chauvin got punished
I can also say that the system covered it up. No one got punished, except for the people standing next to Chauvin. There was a bunch of people who lied on police reports or took down the information knowing it was a lie. Also, the guy who started the 'exhaustive delirium' code word that the other senior officer used in the video to try and justify killing Floyd
I disagree that an individual person showing favouritism to other individual persons is "oppression." It's a shitty thing to do, sure, but not "oppression."
No, it's not.
I mean, I'll make it perfectly clear, if people start calling me/thinking of me as an "oppressor," I've been called/regarded as far worse on these forums, "oppressor" is quite mild. But if you're subscribing to a belief system that labels people into oppressed, oppressor, or both, then, well, can't say it's an idea I agree with. It trivializes actual oppression, and it's a very blinked way of seeing the world.
Well, I think saying "the system" is a cop-out. By the job example, it's not "the system" that's being a dick, it's the manager. Or, if you want to point to an actual system that's codified preferential and/or discriminatory treatment, then sure, the system is at fault, but it's still individuals who designed the system. Granted, I think that does provide an 'out' for some people (the "following orders" defence), but if your entire paradigm for looking at it is oppressed/oppressor, then it removes any nuance, assumes guilt by association, etc. I mean, if someone gets hired for a job, and finds out years later that they only got the job because a family member pulled strings at the company, then however that person might feel, it's silly to say they're "oppressing" anyone.
Like, to give an example we've both been on the Ukraine thread, we both know how Putin's levelled the charge of Nazism against an entire country/government, based on the real presence of actual Nazis. If one's going to level such charges, then it best be used accurately, otherwise the term loses all meaning. Or, to use another example, North Korea. NK's probably the most oppressive country on Earth (and yes, I do believe that statement), that doesn't mean I think every citizen of North Korean is an "oppressor," it's the regime. Guilt by association isn't a good way to see the world IMO.
Shitballs... no, not Du Bois. Du Bois conceptualised how the system of white privilege works but unfortunately didn't give it a pithy name academics could cling to. I'm talking about McIntosh (sp?) and that's late 80s.
The White House Did Not Push to Fund a Key Energy Cost-Saving Tool
Missouri Rep. Cori Bush fought to secure $100 million to carry out Biden’s new plan to speed domestic production of clean energy.
prospect.org
So not only are people protesting based on a ruling on the other side of the world, but the article itself describes the issue around "people with a uterus."
Well, I'm just a person with testes, so what do I know?
Just makes your comment stranger then, since it specifically mentions local issues being discussed, fear of precident and an example of similar right wing stirrings to oppose.
And you don't think there's an inherent irony between an article reporting on people protesting against Roe v Wade while simultaniously classifying them solely based on their reproductive capability?
It's good to know that when we called for an ambulance last year and they got here in record time, they were perpetuating white supremacy.
Oh wait, that's not good.
Yeah, how dare people directly affected by a ruling have something to say about it!
First, the people protesting aren't in the United States, so they aren't directly affected by it.
Second, why are you making that point in response to the point I was making that in an article based on said protest about abortion, the article was describing the protesters solely by their reproductive capability?
Do you really think people with uteruses don't have a stake in this more than you do?
Jesus Christ...
READ. WHAT. I. WROTE. ABOVE. YOU. TWAT.
You have an article writing about women protesting against abortion, who of course have more of a stake in this than I do, that's defining them based on the same dehumanizing linguistics that sexists would.
You don't see the irony in that?