Chauvin Found Guilty of All Charges

[Avnger]

I keep hearing this one proposed and every time I do it just sounds so stupid.

When someone gets run over by a drunk driver they don't decide to sue Ford for it. What does the manufacturer have to do with it? The gun manufacturer didn't sell the shooter the gun and didn't make the shooter use it.

Furthermore, what do you do if you get shot by a gun made by a manufacturer that doesn't exist anymore? Who do you sue if the gun that shot you was made with parts from a bunch of different manufacturers?

A firearm is an inherently destructive weapon. Outside of very particular activities such as sport shooting, weapon types such as handguns and semi-automatic rifles are made with the purpose of injuring and/or killing other human beings; of course, things get more murky with others like shotguns and long rifles though. This differs entirely from a car which has the purpose of transportation. Turning a Toyota Camry into a weapon is using it in a manner other than what it was designed for; the same cannot be said an AR-15.

If you wanted a more accurate comparison it would be to another weapon type like a sword or some such. Unlike guns, people don't often go on killing sprees with those items in modern society though.

 

[Sora383]

I know for me I’m going to follow the appeal process as much as I can. I get the feeling his lawyer is already prepped to file.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

A firearm is an inherently destructive weapon. Outside of very particular activities such as sport shooting, weapon types such as handguns and semi-automatic rifles are made with the purpose of injuring and/or killing other human beings; of course, things get more murky with others like shotguns and long rifles though. This differs entirely from a car which has the purpose of transportation. Turning a Toyota Camry into a weapon is using it in a manner other than what it was designed for; the same cannot be said an AR-15.

If you wanted a more accurate comparison it would be to another weapon type like a sword or some such. Unlike guns, people don't often go on killing sprees with those items in modern society though.

And that's all well and good, but the manufacturer has nothing to do with how the item is used or misused.

There are companies that make explosives. Explosives are inherently dangerous and deadly. If someone gets their hands on those explosives, and the manufacturer did not sell those explosives to that person directly is the manufacturer responsible for what that person does?

If someone shoots their friend with a roman candle and it burns their eye out is the fireworks manufacturer responsible for it? Or, if a someone takes all the black powder from a bunch of fireworks and makes a bomb with it is that the fault of the fireworks company and should they be sued for it?

These are companies that produce a product that is legal to own and use, why are they responsible for the misuse of that product?

 

[Seanchaidh]

A firearm is an inherently destructive weapon. Outside of very particular activities such as sport shooting, weapon types such as handguns and semi-automatic rifles are made with the purpose of injuring and/or killing other human beings; of course, things get more murky with others like shotguns and long rifles though. This differs entirely from a car which has the purpose of transportation. Turning a Toyota Camry into a weapon is using it in a manner other than what it was designed for; the same cannot be said an AR-15.

If you wanted a more accurate comparison it would be to another weapon type like a sword or some such. Unlike guns, people don't often go on killing sprees with those items in modern society though.

That doesn't make the argument any better. If you think people shouldn't be allowed to make or sell weapons, that's one thing. But when they are legal to produce and sell in a market system it is rather absurd to blame manufacturers for the details of how they are used. There is an argument that such manufacturers can use their money to control politics and so forth and that this makes the legality of their wares illegitimate somehow, but this is an argument against markets or the influence of money over politics rather than an argument for manufacturer liability in cases of their product working as intended and advertised in a society which encourages the production, sale, and personal ownership of weapons.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Casual Shinji]

Okay, so this might be a 'what the heck are you bringing this up for', but I noticed that when Chauvin heard the verdict he makes almost the same facial expression as Peter Sellers did in Dr. Strangelove when he hears Colonel Ripper ordered the nuclear attack on Russia. Where he's distinguished on the outside, but 'holy shit I really heard that' on the inside. Just thought that was funny.

 

[tstorm823]

Still waiting for those citations about the anti-HRE, anti-Catholic academic "Dark Ages" conspiracy

If you're going to keep referencing it, it's nice to provide evidence.

Dark Ages (historiography) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"During the Reformations of the 16th and 17th centuries, Protestants generally had a similar view to Renaissance humanists such as Petrarch, but also added an Anti-Catholic perspective. They saw classical antiquity as a golden time, not only because of its Latin literature, but also because it witnessed the beginnings of Christianity. They promoted the idea that the 'Middle Age' was a time of darkness also because of corruption within the Catholic Church, such as: popes ruling as kings, veneration of saints' relics, a licentious priesthood, and institutionalized moral hypocrisy. "

Who then made explicitly government schools to teach Protestantism

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"In the 17th century, colonists imported schoolbooks from England. By 1690, Boston publishers were reprinting the English Protestant Tutor under the title of The New England Primer. The Primer was built on rote memorization. By simplifying Calvinist theology..."
And moved on to invent compulsory public education explicitly to counter the propagation of Catholicism:
"As the majority of the nation was Protestant in the 19th century, most states passed a constitutional amendment, called Blaine Amendments, forbidding tax money be used to fund parochial schools. This was largely directed against Catholics, as the heavy immigration from Catholic Ireland after the 1840s aroused nativist sentiment. Many Protestants believed that Catholic children should be educated in public schools in order to become American."

It was 30 years after that the Supreme Court decided that Catholic schools fulfilled the education requirement. As an aside, that's part of how the Indian re-education schools came about. Catholics missionaries were making genuine in-roads with native populations, in part by setting up schools near reservations, and the protestant response was effectively kidnapping.

The rest on if the Hundred Years War was somehow a protestant conspiracy 150 years before the Reformation is, as they say, history.
And not to nitpick, but in terms of major plagues during the middle ages in Europe, they had a major one about every 10-20 years.

I think I understand your misunderstanding then. "The Dark Ages" as popularly understood are from ~500 AD to ~1000 AD, defined as a proper noun by 19th century historians. You're referring to events of the late middle ages.

 

[Agema]

Oh, but we know a whole lot about a big list of saints and popes from the period, but that's Church history, so it doesn't count... for some reason.

The reason being that the Catholic church, even despite its power, was a miniscule part of the entire, rich tapestry of life in the era. If civilisation collapsed tomorrow and our distant descendants tried to figure out what our history was only from Coca-Cola Corp. internal memos, I don't think it would be a very well-rounded view.

Although at least Coca-Cola internal memos won't have claimed their executives carried out all manner of magic tricks.

 

[tstorm823]

The reason being that the Catholic church, even despite its power, was a miniscule part of the entire, rich tapestry of life in the era. If civilisation collapsed tomorrow and our distant descendants tried to figure out what our history was only from Coca-Cola Corp. internal memos, I don't think it would be a very well-rounded view.

Although at least Coca-Cola internal memos won't have claimed their executives carried out all manner of magic tricks.

Your comparison is stupid, but more importantly, you were the one saying "we hardly know about kings of the time". Well, kings were less important than the Church in that era. The Pope had much of the political clout that Emperor's had before them. It'd be like if people in the future looked back and said "well, those 20th century societies didn't place much importance on kings, all we have is this stuff about democracy, they must not have written anything down."

 

[BrawlMan]

Yeah, this one seems justified

View attachment 3638

Look, when it comes to police shootings, a lot of the ones that we see are obviously an unnecessary Police escalation of a non-violent situation, but this one looks like the girl in pink was literally just about to be gutted.

I still have no idea why tazers aren't the default, but I think anyone would have a hard time saying that this shooting wasn't preventing an attack.

Obviously there is the ultimate hypocrisy of "you stopped one person getting injured/killed by killing someone else - a child, no less", but from what I can see at the moment, I would definitely err on the side of this being legal.

What I want to know is what led to her grabbing the knife in the first place. And why didn't any of the adults try to stop it beforehand? There should have been a parent, adult, or guardian of some kind. It sucks bad, but he made the legal call. But what I asked is the bigger question though, what led to her using that knife on them in the first place. They should investigate that as well.

 

[Agema]

Your comparison is stupid, but more importantly, you were the one saying "we hardly know about kings of the time".

"We hardly know about kings of the time" is just an example to represent the general lack of information. Records of rulers are generally a sort of minimal information content, because they are important, perceived by people of the time including historians to be important, and tend to leave traces of their existence. To take the example of Britain, there were plenty of kings or equivalent leaders around 400-600AD. Who any of them were we don't really know. The leaders of the Saxons who first conquered a large chunk of and settled in England are called "Hengist" and "Horsa". Except they're probably about as mythical as King Arthur.

It says a lot that even the few historians around in the early Middle Ages seem to be effectively clueless about large tracts of the preceding centuries. By contrast, the Greeks and Romans wrote a ton of stuff far and wide and even where we have lost a lot of those histories, they are part of the source material of ones we do have, because they recorded so much of what went on.

 

[SilentPony]

The dark ages were called that because they were the age of the Holy Roman Empire, and the people who wrote the history you believe were furiously anti-Catholic protestants, who close their ears at the suggestion that the witch burning started after the dark ages ended.

I think I understand your misunderstanding then. "The Dark Ages" as popularly understood are from ~500 AD to ~1000 AD, defined as a proper noun by 19th century historians. You're referring to events of the late middle ages.

You wanna pick a time frame and stick with it please? If the "Dark Ages" end roughly 1000AD, how the hell were anti-Catholic protestants forming propaganda roughly 500 years before the Protestant Reformation?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Eh, I've always been led to believe that the Dark Ages ended when the Normans civilised the Angles by killing lots of them stating in 1066. Implying that the Dark Ages ended on the mainland much earlier, because they had more Normans than Angles there, but nobody cares because of some weird attitudes regarding people on different sides of the channel.

 

[tstorm823]

You wanna pick a time frame and stick with it please? If the "Dark Ages" end roughly 1000AD, how the hell were anti-Catholic protestants forming propaganda roughly 500 years before the Protestant Reformation?

They weren't. The were forming anti-Catholic propaganda ~800 years after the end of the early middle ages. The concept of "dark ages" started being used near the end of the middle ages, and grew in usage during the Renaissance, but "The Dark Ages" was an invention of protestant historians in the 1800s, referring specifically to the period where the Catholic Church was the dominant political power, from the fall of Rome, through the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, up until about the time of the Great Schism and the rise of Kingdoms as the central political unit. Nobody in 1000AD was calling anything the dark ages, capitalized or not.

Protestants had nothing to do with the early middle ages, Protestantism didn't exist yet, but they did have a major influence on retrospective historical accounts made centuries later, especially in the English language. And that generation of historians is how we got "The Dark Ages", it's how we got "people didn't know the earth was round", all the nonsense about Columbus, all the nonsense about Galileo. There are piles and piles of historical misconceptions that can be firmly blamed on anti-Catholic historians from a couple centuries ago.

 

[Revnak]

Eh, I've always been led to believe that the Dark Ages ended when the Normans civilised the Angles by killing lots of them stating in 1066. Implying that the Dark Ages ended on the mainland much earlier, because they had more Normans than Angles there, but nobody cares because of some weird attitudes regarding people on different sides of the channel.

The Anglos were never civilized.

 

[Agema]

Eh, I've always been led to believe that the Dark Ages ended when the Normans civilised the Angles by killing lots of them stating in 1066. Implying that the Dark Ages ended on the mainland much earlier, because they had more Normans than Angles there, but nobody cares because of some weird attitudes regarding people on different sides of the channel.

Very likely the British Isles did leave the Dark Ages later than the continent. The British Isles were basically the slightly backward, bumpkin, arse end of Europe until the 1600s.

It's worth noting that Italy was almost certainly richer and better developed than the rest of Western Europe all throughout the Middle Ages, because it retained a lot of its higher development from the Roman era. All the way until the French realised it was a load of little city states full of money and devastated it with attempted conquest around 1500.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Ok, so there seems to have been a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. When I said this isn't meant to be the trial, I meant that because people decided to assemble a mob of people, much like they used to assemble to lynch black people 100 years ago, that they'd scuffed this whole trial. This conclusion, if things go how the court process is supposed to, will be thrown out due to the influences of outside forces.

That is the theory I saw being talked about elsewhere. Not some stupid fucking conspiracy theory of "deep state" card shuffling. So if my point is now understood I would like to actually discuss that aspect of the trial if everyone is ok with that.

If I got your meaning wrong, I freely admit that. However, I quoted you about your tangential statement of why do people still talk about Trump. Take away the trial aspect, everything else still holds up.

Surely you can talk about that subject matter. It isn't what I was referring to, so I have actually no input on that.

What would you suggest as a solution then? If police reform has continued to fall short of what people want and people feel that the organization is corrupt and only works to further the ends of the elite then should we return to community self-policing?

The problem isn't legislation or reform. It's Labels. It's the Me vs Them. For Resources, For Authority, or for a need of a Superiority Complex.

It's why grown people who know about death, right and wrong, and about personal responsibility can look at one human being casually ignore the life he's actively taking for 9 minutes of a knee-to-neck hold and think about how this situation will look for their brand.

Let me boil it down one more time. A grown man with training put pressure on a man's neck for 9 minutes and thought nothing of it. More over, he actively ignored and threatened others who tried to point out the fact of how deadly that is.

That's not a legislation or a reform issue, once again. The rules are already on the books about use of force and the responsibilities of an officer afterwards. Hell, I literally answered questions on that when I took my NYPD test. Before I had interview one on whether I should be allowed on the Force. What happened was so egregious that the Use-Of-Force trainer came out and said that move was straight up not taught to any officer.

Frankly, there's nothing really left to put on the books because the books already cover it. The problem could be said to be the people who are authorized to put on the badge and "dispense justice". But that's only a part of it.

The real problem is the segment of the population who view these situations where Law Officers have lied, murdered, and attempted to get away with it as a "Us vs Them" situation. Those who will lie to themselves and others that they will "Back the Blue" no matter what, as long as a certain other segment of the population is the ones who are hurt. I don't remember seeing a single person who says that stick up for the officer that shot Justine Damond. Or after the police chase and shooting that left a 6 year old boy dead.

It seems in certain circumstances, the public as a whole will find Officers to be held to a higher standard. That with their instilled powers, they are held to a grave responsibility to not mess up even for a second... when dealing with certain people. Those who don't fit the criteria of 'certain people', however? Oh, they can be killed willy nilly. Officers are now human when dealing with these others. These things can be 'tragic mistakes' when it happens to the others.

That's why the movement is called Black Lives Matters.

George Floyd's life weighs as much as Justine Damond's. Tamir Rice's weighs as much as Jeremy Mardis'. And therein lies the reason why more rules and reforms and legislation is essentially meaningless.

When you have a certain segment of the population always searching, doing everything possible to justify the police's actions... The Police Never Have To.

The Police are like a Spoiled Rich Kid whose parents can not even entertain for a second that someone that has their DNA can be accountable for anything. You caught little Coppy cheating on his Test? Bull. You don't have anything. And if he had to cheat, that would mean this damn school isn't teaching him well enough that the information isn't coming to him so readily.

Little Coppy got into a fight?! How DARE you people not be around Coppy 24/7, making sure of his safety?! The fact that he had to raise a fist means you failed him. And he had to resort to this?! Wait until our lawyers get a hold of you.

Certain people go out of their way to make the Police, a trained and vastly superior fighting force compared to any average Joe on the street, into Little Coppy who always needs us to hold their hand and pretend everything they do isn't their fault... unless it happens to us. And then little Coppy needs a spanking.

All the rules and regulations will mean nothing if the police continue to get blind and unyielding support simply because they can be used as an ultimate Trump card in the battle of "Us vs Them". And we all know its true, because almost every video we've seen a non-black person calling the cops on a black person goes to threatening to call the cops unless the Black Person capitulates to their demands.

So what do I suggest? More Moral and Outstanding people populate our country. Who see the brutalization of their fellow citizens as an outrage, regardless of their past. Because the Police aren't meant to dole out physical Punitive damage to criminals. They are there to merely apprehend them.

We need more Moral people instead of people who feign Morals for leverage to get more power.

 

[Kwak]

Yikes...

 

[tippy2k2]

Yikes...
View attachment 3669

Evidently the actual tweet from Chicago Police is fake

But the spirit of it is true

 

[Piscian]

Evidently the actual tweet from Chicago Police is fake

But the spirit of it is true

It's difficult to imagine they'd be that dumb on the official page, but Im sure the Facebook chats are full of this exact thing. It's sad because I'm there's good cops out there who are appalled by all this, but I'm sure they get warned daily that they'll lose everything for speaking up.