Rioting is indefensible regardless of what anyone else does or doesn't do.
Agreed, although it's on the government to try to ameliorate these kinds of situations
before it turns into a riot. Saying that "rioting is indefensible" may be legally and morally correct, but is it a practical position to take? Sometimes politics involves a bit of give and take - and not everything is necessarily done by the book, nor is that even always desirable.
I don't know what the actual sequence of events was in this case. I do know that your demand that everything should be released on the same day is totally unrealistic and the creation of unrealistic expectations is most certainly one of the causes of disputes and protests.
Maybe 50-75 years ago, this might have been the case. Nowadays, we have technologies where a video can be taken in one minute and uploaded to the internet the next. It's certainly technologically possible to release video on the same day, so that's not the issue.
The only thing that's unrealistic is expecting judges, politicians, lawyers, cops, and/or other government officials to act and behave as reasonable human beings.
No, they happen because people are incited to anger by what they're told is happening, regardless of whether that is true or not. The key problem with what you're talking about is that this video and other information isn't really released to the public, it's released to the media. The media will then select, manipulate and spin that information to create the most profitable stories for themselves. And the stuff that stirs up protests (and ultimately violence) is often the same kind of thing.
Well, if the powers that be in government wanted to bypass the media, they could release the video over the internet for the public to access on their own, without any media spin. Just the raw footage and let the people decide for themselves. Again, the way to get out in front of these things is to stay one step ahead of the media.
The thing is, the politicians are responding to the manipulation and spin the media are creating here. The current media spin is actually beneficial to the politicians and the police, since the public seems convinced that the culprit in this crime is the late Andrew Jackson or that some cops are racist or white people are racists or whatever - just as long as the focus is taken away from the actual cops who did this and the city/state government where it happened. It seems like the focus has been put on everything else
except what actually happened to George Floyd and the individuals responsible. I find that interesting, and this is what the media are spinning - and the politicians are clearly going along with that narrative.
Part of the reason we have criminal justice systems is to avoid having people respond to situations on the basis of limited or manipulated information. All the evidence needs to be gathered, carefully assessed together and all of the relevant fact established. That process can be frustratingly slow and it certainly isn't perfect (nothing involving human beings is) but it's still better than nothing at all.
Another part of the reason we have criminal justice systems is to dispense justice on behalf of the people. The reason we're having to deal with riots now is because of a long track record of the criminal justice system repeatedly failing in that task. That's why it might be worthwhile to examine the methods and tactics they use - such as their philosophical decision to withhold evidence from public view. This isn't rocket science. They're making these decisions based on their own
opinion of what they think is the correct course of action to take, probably because "this is the way we've always done it."
But my point is, whatever old school principles you're subscribing to simply won't cut it anymore. People are rioting because they feel they're not getting justice from the same system which appears fossilized and intransigent. So whatever way "we've always done it" may not be the correct way. Whatever standards or methods they believe are "the correct way" may not be that. Realizing that the system is not perfect, maybe they should consider making some changes and reforms. Or is that too "unrealistic"?
Is it though, or is the perception of "withholding" the video prior to it being presented in court (which is standard legal practice) being misrepresented and spun to confuse and distract the pubic? And are you just an innocent victim of that or are you actually engaging in the spin yourself?
"Standard legal practice," huh? Obviously, "standard legal practice" doesn't get the job done, does it? Maybe the problem isn't due to "spin" but more to fossilized, outmoded "standard legal practices."
In any case, the original video had already come out. That was what triggered the riots in the first place, although it didn't happen right away. It really didn't get started until a few days after the incident and the posting of the video. They had time to immediately arrest and charge the police officers involved, and presumably they would have enough time to review the body cam footage as well. All they did at first was fire the police officers, and it wasn't until after the riots started that they actually arrested Chauvin. It was several days after that when they arrested and charged the officers involved.
So, no matter how you slice it, it was a major screw up.
If anyone else, other than a cop, had put their knee on someone's neck and held them there until they died, that person would have been arrested immediately and put in jail. And I don't think the cops or the judges would have had any compunction about explaining why they arrested him if anyone from the media asked. Likewise, the chances are minimal that there would be a riot if most of the public was satisfied that justice was being done.
I've seen similar cases where the local authorities got out in front of it, made it clear from the outset that they weren't going to cover up or protect the cop, reassuring the public (or most of them anyway) that justice would be done. Remember, after the Rodney King incident, the people didn't riot because of the event itself, but because of the not guilty verdict for the cops who did it.
If "standard legal practice" is insufficient to convince and assure the public that justice will be done, then perhaps that should be reexamined.
