Thief
Rogue Theologian
tell it to the judge
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Footage of George Floyd arrest video leaked
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
Sometimes information comes out when the police have press conferences.
What have you got against transparency in government? The way to avoid the kinds of things you're talking about (such as manipulation of public opinion) is by practicing full disclosure and making the public aware that justice is being done. By leaving the public in the dark, it increases doubt and undermines confidence in the system.
Sometimes, leaks are a necessary evil. Consider the recent case of the whistleblower, or "Deep Throat" during the Watergate scandal. Edward Snowden and the Wikileaks scandal are other examples, although there is a sharp difference of opinion on that. Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers are yet another example, although many people regarded Ellsberg as a hero.
So, with respect, I believe that you're wrong here. People might have many reasons for leaking information which have nothing to do with political gain or making money. Sometimes, it's just the right thing to do for the cause of justice. Do you disagree?
Not at all. I'm not arguing for separate laws, but it does seem apparent that that's how it goes in practice. But I wasn't even saying that. My only point here was that most cases will go along without much notice from the media or the public at large. Usually, something heinous will get reported, like a kidnapping or murder - or an egregious case of police brutality such as we have here. Lesser crimes might still make the news if it involves someone famous, such as a politician or celebrity getting a DUI or a minor drug charge which wouldn't otherwise get much attention.
However, theoretically, one can get evidence if one wants to. I know that in my minor dealings with the local courts and government, I've been able to get whatever documents and reports I need when I ask for them. On that note, anyone can do a background check on me or you and find out all kinds of information. There really is no privacy in this world, and this is even more so if one ends up in court.
I'm not calling for anarchy, nor am I an anarchist. However, strictly speaking, something may come about in this country that comes close to that. There's already a certain degree of chaos taking place, and there are already doubts about the upcoming election.
I honestly don't know what's going to happen, which is why I so strongly believe in transparency and openness in government, as well as accountability and justice. I believe that doing so would serve the cause of peace and move us away from a more dangerous and treacherous course.
Well, the rhetoric has been already out there and is all over the map. Now, they're in a position where they have to do damage control, largely because they dragged their feet in those crucial first days when they knew they were dealing with an explosive situation. They would have far more success in containing the situation if they had acted more quickly and got out in front of this.
The more people get to see it, the more likely it might be seen by other professionals or learned people who can offer their own take on it and perhaps come up with suggestions for improvement. Government investigators might be very well qualified, but it doesn't hurt to have an independent evaluation.
So, then, what's the problem? You say it could influence potential jurors, but I would say that any potential jurors have already been influenced in this case, even before this particular video came out.
I think the public has a right to know.
Circular arguments? I was addressing your suggestion that the cops may have been in the right and your supposition that I already had my mind made up "regardless of what actually happened." The point is, the public already knows "what actually happened," or they might think they know based on what's reported in the media. If there's more information which hasn't been released but could offer clarification or perhaps even correct some inaccuracies, then that might help the situation.
My only point here is that releasing information in a more timely manner might help to forestall or prevent any public outrage, violence, or riots. I would think that's in the public interest as well.
Not if justice is done. It really isn't that difficult to figure out.
That's part of what this thread was about, but whatever. Have a nice life.
So they thought he had a gun?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
they respond......to what they see
and to what they don't see
when they say......SHOW YOUR HANDS
do that
George was not doing so
he could have been shot for that
It seems that only the big time criminals could do stuff like that, and if it's someone at a higher level in the hierarchy, then chances are they could just bribe someone and get whatever evidence they want. The poorer criminals wouldn't have that luxury, even if the evidence was released.
Or it could expose police brutality and make it publicly known. Apart from that, there is technology which could blur out the faces of innocent bystanders, victims, and the general public. The purpose would be to focus on the actions of the police officers, not bystanders or anyone else. The public has a right to know what the police are doing in their name.
Besides, the police have released video when it suits their purposes - and can often do so quite rapidly if they want to. I often see it on the news when they have surveillance footage or photographs of someone who's wanted by the law.
Oh I've thought and rethought about this issue over the years. All I'm really looking at are the results, and all the numerous cases of police misconduct which have been recorded on video. It makes me wonder how many incidents and allegations occurred in the past which weren't on video.
I don't think that calling for greater openness and transparency perverts the course of justice, and I also believe that by making the police accountable, there will be fewer innocent people getting hurt.
"Let the system work." Yeah, I've heard that before, but the system is broken. It's been broken for quite some time - and it's left a lot of dead bodies in its wake. That's part of the reason why so many people have been upset and on a bit of a rampage these days.
As for how to fix it, I'm offering a suggestion here in this thread, and you don't like it. How can the system be fixed if you and so many others argue against it?
I figure the courts know what they're doing when it comes to their specific function within the government, but when it comes to things like public opinion, public outrage, riots - and the kinds of things that spark riots - that may be more in the realm of politicians.
If the politicians know what they're doing, then they'll get to the bottom of this, have their own investigation into the riots and the incident which sparked it, and they'll give the public real answers as to what happened and what they're going to do to fix it. I don't know how far the movement to defund the police will actually go, but that's one possible avenue.
Personally, I don't favor that proposal myself; I don't think there's any need to defund the police or anything like that. My proposal is about transparency and openness. The public has a right to know what the police are doing, especially in cases where someone ends up dead in their custody.
This could be just as much in the interests of the police and courts, as it could restore the broken trust between the community and their police and justice system.
Whenever these kinds of incidents involving deaths of suspects at the hands of the police, they always say "it's just a few bad apples" and that it's not a reflection on the police department as a whole. I'd like to believe that's true, but all they have to do is show us. I don't believe we should just trust the system blindly. I think a free citizenry requires vigilance and a watchful eye on what our government is doing.
We shouldn't just take their word for it that "they know what they're doing."
Many a disaster has been preceded by someone uttering the words "Trust me, I know what I'm doing."
I sometimes wonder why police officers seem to treat every encounter with the general public as if they're in some kind of wild west movie. Somebody makes one false move, and they act like they have to beat them to the draw. Even if they're unarmed. The cops only have to think you're armed, and they have license to kill.
I remember a case a while back where the Border Patrol pulled over someone for "suspicious driving." The suspect pulled over and they found a bag of weed in the trunk. The suspect ran away but was shot while escaping. The Border Patrol agent said he turned while running away, although he was unarmed. Of course there was no video of this, so the Border Patrol's version was pretty much accepted as is. But sometimes one has to wonder about these things.
A lot of these cases are pretty much small potatoes - very low level stuff, yet these cops are acting like they're taking on ISIS, the KGB, and KAOS single-handedly. They go into these minor situations amped up and loaded for bear.
You seem to think that Floyd or any other suspect should just instantly obey the police commands, but not everyone thinks in those terms. This may be a common, scripted event in the life of a police officer, but to the ordinary citizen, it's somewhat rare to have a police officer come up from behind and say "SHOW YOUR HANDS." A lot of ordinary, innocent people may be shocked or surprised by that and may not be able to react in time - or they might go into a panic, as what appears to be the case here.
I do understand what you're getting at here. Don't mess with cops, just do what they say, and one has a better chance of surviving the encounter. I think that's actually good advice, and perhaps that's what George Floyd should have done. I'm not really arguing what George Floyd should have done. I'm looking more at what the cops should have done.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
From what I read, many of them are literally being trained to think like this:
One of America's most popular police trainers is teaching officers how to kill
An entire organization staffed with people who believe they are at war with the very society they live in would probably result in some deeply dysfunctional behavior both at the individual level and at the policy level.
Disgusting! That guy sounds like a psychopath who needs professional help. Killing can help your sex life? Wtf!
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Nothing, but we're talking about the legal system, not government. Part of the problem here is the politicisation of this court case. There are wider political questions surrounding the circumstances but they shouldn't corrupt the process of this case (though sadly that seems inevitable).
No, which is why I said those were the reasons generally. And given that this specific video would have been in the public domain in a matter of weeks, I can see no legitimate justification for leaking it (and it alone remember).
I think you missed the point there. You declared an unconditional distrust of everyone involved in the criminal justice system. If that was truly how you felt, you wouldn't be able to support the continued existence of that system. I'm putting it to you that you don't really believe what you said but were getting caught up in political rhetoric. I think you're smart enough to move beyond that.
Sorry but that is bull****. In this kind of situations there are always demands that the authorities act instantly and that simply isn't realistic. Some the people calling for it know it isn't realistic but call for it so they can then attack the authorities when they take the time to do things properly.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
THE VIDEO WOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED AFTER IT WAS PRESENTED IN COURT. Why can't you get that fact through your skull?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
winner
Is that supposed to be a response? Do you know what democracy is supposed to be?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and you have a sex life?
Wtf
Thief
Rogue Theologian
this type of digression reveals how you think
Explain.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Not all of us post here because our private life is empty and devoid of meaning.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Would it, though? Why should everyone assume that?
The judicial branch of government is every bit a part of government, just as the executive and legislative branches. What makes you think the legal system is not part of the government?
That's because this isn't an ordinary court case. This is an abuse of power which has to be examined, as this cuts to the very core of our national principles. The people have every right to demand assurances that justice will be done. They want to know if cases like this are the norm or if it's just a matter of "a few bad apples." I believe the best way to reassure the public and reduce societal outrage is to offer open and transparent assurances that justice will be done, and it should be honest and above-board, withholding or concealing nothing.
It's when things are kept hidden - that's when public cynicism and suspicion increases.
By the same token, I see no legitimate justification for withholding it. This is especially true if, as you say, the video is going to be released anyway. Remember, this is not some "private video." This video is public property.
I think you missed the point there. You declared an unconditional distrust of everyone involved in the criminal justice system. If that was truly how you felt, you wouldn't be able to support the continued existence of that system. I'm putting it to you that you don't really believe what you said but were getting caught up in political rhetoric. I think you're smart enough to move beyond that.
I think you've gotten stuck on a minor quip I made. It's not that big a deal. But there are a number of flaws in the system which should be addressed. Part of the reason there's been very little meaningful change or reform in the system is largely because the system is dominated by arrogance and intransigence on the part of the same people we're talking about.
I've seen examples where the cops did get in front of a potentially explosive situation, and their quick response lessened the potential fallout. There was an incident where a black man was pulled over for what was later described by the authorities as a "chicken crap stop." They released the body cam video (before the trial) and charged the officer with murder. The prosecutor was just as outraged over the shooting and the circumstances leading up to it as anyone else.
There was some outrage and disorderly conduct, but very little in comparison to what's been going on lately. That shows the difference of what can happen when the justice system operates transparently and quickly. It softens tensions and reduces public outrage, when the public is assured that justice will be done.
It should be noted that they not only addressed what happened at the moment of death, but also what led up to it ("chicken crap stop").
So, there is most definitely a correct way to handle these incidents.
You think it's wrong to tell the people the truth?
I understand that, but that's beside the point.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
evidence is SUPPOSED to be withheld
picking an impartial jury might be difficult with public bias already in play