Maxine Waters, the verdict, DeSantis anti-riot bill

[Nyseto]

I only agree with the 3rd charge of manslaughter for Derek for being reckless by not letting off. Policing is ugly no matter which way you cut it, but the only reason he also had those first two murder charges was so that they can make an example out if him-no more, no less. It's very hard to prove that he was trying to commit third degree assault for the second degree murder charge due to those sort of practices being allowed by the Minneapolis polkce department at the time. The same goes for the third degree murder charge where it's also hard to prove that he intended to commit an act dangerous to others. The jury had to vote guilty on all charges due to the fact that it would cause more rioting and put themselves in danger. Floyd was no angel either and it was important that his actions were looked at as well. People who can't stand that and get angry all of a sudden by spewing nonsense such as "blaming the victim" is only because they aren't mature enough to look at both sides of a story because they don't want to see Floyd's wrongdoings.

As far as Maxine Waters goes, she must be held accountable for inciting riots with her "be more confrontational" comments. Liberals are quick to bring up their narrative from Jan. 6 that Trump incited the capitol riot, but they're missing the point. It's not that Republicans are unaware of the left's narrative of "Trump incited the capitol riot", it's precisely because they are aware of that narrative that it's important to use it back against the left when they are being hypocrites such as in Maxine Water's case. It's clear that the left doesn't like being called out for the same things they called Trump out for, it's only fair that way.

But the best thing from all of this, which is why I saved the best for last...is DeSantis' anti riot bill. While the whole fiasco of Derek Chauvin and George Floyd was a tragedy, I'm highly against rioting and looting in the name of anyone. It's good to see that in other parts of the country, bills like these are getting passed that are meant to discourage rioting. The left isn't the resistance, it's the right. The left controls the media and Hollywood...hard from being the resistors. The blow back is building up slowly. So what if democrats control the Senate, House, and White House. They have before and ended up losing them. It's good having the democrats control everything for now since it puts them in the spotlight and leaves them open to most of the criticism. 

[Willie]

1 hour ago, Nyseto said:

I only agree with the 3rd charge of manslaughter for Derek for being reckless by not letting off. Policing is ugly no matter which way you cut it, but the only reason he also had those first two murder charges was so that they can make an example out if him-no more, no less. It's very hard to prove that he was trying to commit third degree assault for the second degree murder charge due to those sort of practices being allowed by the Minneapolis polkce department at the time. The same goes for the third degree murder charge where it's also hard to prove that he intended to commit an act dangerous to others. The jury had to vote guilty on all charges due to the fact that it would cause more rioting and put themselves in danger. Floyd was no angel either and it was important that his actions were looked at as well. People who can't stand that and get angry all of a sudden by spewing nonsense such as "blaming the victim" is only because they aren't mature enough to look at both sides of a story because they don't want to see Floyd's wrongdoings.

As far as Maxine Waters goes, she must be held accountable for inciting riots with her "be more confrontational" comments. Liberals are quick to bring up their narrative from Jan. 6 that Trump incited the capitol riot, but they're missing the point. It's not that Republicans are unaware of the left's narrative of "Trump incited the capitol riot", it's precisely because they are aware of that narrative that it's important to use it back against the left when they are being hypocrites such as in Maxine Water's case. It's clear that the left doesn't like being called out for the same things they called Trump out for, it's only fair that way.

But the best thing from all of this, which is why I saved the best for last...is DeSantis' anti riot bill. While the whole fiasco of Derek Chauvin and George Floyd was a tragedy, I'm highly against rioting and looting in the name of anyone. It's good to see that in other parts of the country, bills like these are getting passed that are meant to discourage rioting. The left isn't the resistance, it's the right. The left controls the media and Hollywood...hard from being the resistors. The blow back is building up slowly. So what if democrats control the Senate, House, and White House. They have before and ended up losing them. It's good having the democrats control everything for now since it puts them in the spotlight and leaves them open to most of the criticism. 

Rioting is the reason this country exists. Imagine if the Founding Fathers had paid their taxes like good little colonists.

[NorthRise]

1 hour ago, Willie said:

Rioting is the reason this country exists. Imagine if the Founding Fathers had paid their taxes like good little colonists.

MLK also brought upon positive change in a peaceful way. Rioting is not the only way to spread your message or achieve your societal goals. 

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Nyseto said:

 but the only reason he also had those first two murder charges was so that they can make an example out if him-no more, no less.

Did you actually watch the trial? The prosecution presented a very strong case with extensive evidence and well-renowned expert witness. The defense couldn't counter. It was like college professors up against kids with Down Syndrome. Based on the trial itself, I can easily see how a jury could go with the prosecution. 

4 hours ago, Nyseto said:

The same goes for the third degree murder charge where it's also hard to prove that he intended to commit an act dangerous to others.

This is a distorted narrative. Third degree murder does not require intent.

Third-degree murder is unintentionally causing someone’s death by committing an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life. Chauvin is accused of committing or intentionally aiding in the commission of this crime.

Judge Cahill himself told jurors that under Minnesota law, an act that is eminently dangerous is one that “is highly likely to cause death,”. “The defendant’s act may not have been specifically intended to cause death,” and “it may not have been specifically directed at the person whose death occurred, but it must have been committed with a conscious indifference to the loss of life,” said the judge.

The prosecution made an extremely strong case that Chauvin committed an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life and conscious indifference to the loss of life. This is one of the most extreme examples of indifference to the loss of life one can imagine. The defense didn't even counter this point. The entire defense was that other factors caused Floyd's death (such as heart condition, intoxication, CO poising). Even the defense witness conceded that Chauvin had an indifference to the loss of life. 

My only qualm would be the technicality of "depraved mind". Imo, it was established that Chauvin did not meet the standard of a "reasonable officer" (which the defense conceded after the 5min. mark). The trial did not dive into "depraved mind". Yet the judge set the standard of murder 3 in Minnesota to be "conscious indifference to the loss of life". A conscious indifference is totally obvious. Chauvin's fellow police officers were saying to roll Floyd over to his side. Floyd was motionless / dead for about 3min., an EMT was urging medical care, a paramedic told Chauvin that Floyd had no pulse. And through it all Chauvin kept up the pressure. They had to pull Chauvin off the dead body. I think any objective person would acknowledge this as "conscious indifference to loss of life."

[abundance]

Rioting against social injustice is not comparable to riots being done with the intent of over turning a democratic election. And its interesting how Waters should be fired, yet Trump (whose rhetoric led to an actual insurrection) has yet to be held accountable for his actions. 

 

[Epikur]

1 hour ago, abundance said:

Rioting against social injustice is not comparable to riots being done with the intent of over turning a democratic election. And its interesting how Waters should be fired, yet Trump (whose rhetoric led to an actual insurrection) has yet to be held accountable for his actions. 

 

Rioting is like playing with fire and sometimes literally . Historically the effects had been quite dialectic.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Epikur

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, abundance said:

Rioting against social injustice is not comparable to riots being done with the intent of over turning a democratic election. And its interesting how Waters should be fired, yet Trump (whose rhetoric led to an actual insurrection) has yet to be held accountable for his actions. 

I've noticed this as well. This is the dynamic of selective filtering and creating false equivalencies.

Protests that get unruly because people as so fed up with injustice as very different than protests that get unruly because people believe democrats are satan-worshipping pedophiles that eat children. 

The underlying energy driving the protests and violence needs to be considered. 

Right-wingers have the capacity to understand differences of motivation. They know the difference between someone killing a person to steal their car and someone killing a person in self defense. Both involve violence, yet have different motivations driving the violence. However, if someone is identified and attached to one form, they will filter out the differences. For example: "Why is everyone so upset with the capital violence, yet not upset with BLM violence?"

[Preety_India]

17 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I've noticed this as well. This is the dynamic of selective filtering and creating false equivalencies.

And I've noticed it as well. 

Blowing up a candy store because you didn't get your candy is very different from fighting against racial injustices. 

An act of terrorism being compared to an act of  revolution!

 

 

[Preety_India]

@Forestluv by the way, if there is an anti-riot bill then where is the anti-police brutality against blacks Bill?

 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Preety_India said:

Blowing up a candy store because you didn't get your candy is very different from fighting against racial injustices. 

An act of terrorism being compared to an act of  revolution!

The tricky part is that those immersed and identified within a story will consider their side to be subjected to injustice. They are the victims. Protecting this story is a matter of survival for the ego. 

Those storming the capital truly believed that Trump won in a landslide and communists stole the election and will take over the country - leading to hell. Their survival and the survival of America depends upon "Stop the Steal". They are the true patriots defending America from Biden and the evil communists. They truly believe this and their survival depends upon it. I saw interviews and interacted with MAGAs that were extremely distressed. To them, storming the capital is justified for their survival and the survival of their family and America. . . And Trump / Republicans made a fortune fundraising off this. Fearmongering is great for fundraising off tens of millions of people. 

[Forestluv]

The "anti-rioting" bill is a good example of when1st Amendment freedom of speech is operative (as opposed to "cancel culture" online).

The 1st Amendment forbids the government from suppressing speech and assembly. This does not apply to social media sites monitoring speech on their platform.

A statement from Orlando attorney's filing a lawsuit:

“These statutes are unconstitutional on their face and as-applied to Plaintiffs’ planned speech and expressive conduct because: (1) they target protected speech under the First Amendment; (2) they are written with the intent of defining any such protest as a “riot” or participation in such protest as “inciting a riot”; and (3) they retaliate against those subjected to these laws with excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment as a means of hindering the speech of dissenting opinions,” the lawsuit states.

The sneaky part is giving the state authority to declare any protest they want a "riot" and arresting anyone involved in a protest for "inciting a riot". This currently happens, yet it's not in state law. For example, police have declared public gatherings as "unlawful assemblies" for trivial reasons so they can break it up. Yet it's not legal to do so and people can file lawsuits - so there is some protection against it. Yet this law would remove that protection by legally allowing the state to declare anything they want as a "riot".

[Epikur]

Quote

At least 25 Americans were killed during protests and political unrest in 2020

It is not ideal but it was for a good cause.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled