Here's something that maybe you can help me out on. George Floyd died as a result of police brutality, there's no denying it. Four policemen against one guy, so there was no need for the way things went down (as they say in the States). There seems to be contradictory claims as to whether some kind of drugs he'd taken before his arrest contributed to his death or not, but, either way, that doesn't excuse what was clearly unnecessary force in subduing him. And the question has to be asked - was there even any need to subdue him? So it unequivocally shouldn't have happened and the way that the policeman/men dealt with the situation was clearly excessive.
However, I feel bound to ask why it's been labelled as an instance of racism. Did the now convicted policeman ever state that he disliked black people? Was the colour of George Floyd's skin even an issue? Has that been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was it simply a case of power-mad cops revelling in and abusing their position in the way they dealt with an American citizen regardless of his colour? Had George been white and the policeman black, would colour have even been an issue in the case?
What's your view, fellow Crivvies? If you wish to contribute to the topic, you know where the comments section is.
11 comments:
I've overheard a few conversations in work about this, and everyone concerned seemed to assume that the policeman used excessive force that he would not have done had the apprehended criminal been white.
This may well be true, but it relies on a lot of assumptions about the guy's character.
He might be a racist, he might not. They're may or may not be unconscious bias at work. The police force in that city may or may not do enough to make sure their officers do not discriminate due to skin colour. What I find most worrying though is that many people had automatically assumed that the officer was a malicious racist murderer before any trial or even before they knew the full story. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is the foundation of law in most civilised countries, and it seems that many people these days prefer to assume the opposite.
I think it's more likely the case that the cop used excessive force 'cos George was a big powerful-looking guy, not necessarily because of the colour of his skin, but it still shouldn't have happened. As you say, DS, there's a lot of assumptions involved (on both sides), but I can't help but feel that many black people automatically ascribe any negative experience they have to racism, when it may well not be. And of course, it should go without saying that sometimes it will be.
To date, no one has revealed a substantial racial incident in Chauvin's career. He had 16 complaints against him, but the Minneapolis PD has not revealed what they were about, only that there was no disciplinary action. This may mean that the complaints were mostly frivolous, since I don't believe that anyone who made the complaints has talked to the American press-- and you know the press would have been anxious to find out anything such informants could have said. (I suppose the complainants might have been enjoined legally not to discuss their cases, but that seems unlikely.)
I look forward to hearing Chauvin testify as to his motivations, since he avoided making any testimony in court. Did he have the notion that he had to tranquilize Floyd, who was thrashing around in the police cruiser? That Chauvin committed some type of manslaughter is not in doubt, but I still want to know why he did what he did.
The prosecution did not seek to prove him a racist, but pretty much every pundit who celebrated the conviction framed it as a triumph against racism.
I don't believe there was any racism in it at all from the police. George Floyd was a nasty bit of goods and obviously committed a serious crime to need restraining by 4 officers who were under I would say a great deal of pressure. Naturally the lefties take advantage and hey wouldn't you know it George Floyd is now the USAs No1 hero. As has been said earlier reverse the roles and No-one would give a toss . The three dangerous words of today's times are RACISM...BULLYING...SEXISM..
Yeah, GP, and it's that racism aspect that bothers me. More and more it's being suggested that all white people are intrinsically racist, and I don't believe that for a second. There's an agenda going on here, and it's to no one's benefit except those who want to propagate (for their own ends) the concept of 'whitey' subjugating black people (and other ethnic minorities) practically 24/7. Black people are being led to believe that they're victims of white oppression and that every ill they experience is down to us. I suspect sinister forces are at work in the propagation of this myth, and I'm no conspiracy theorist.
******
Well, he was suspected of passing a single counterfeit banknote, LH, and it hasn't been proved (as far as I know) whether he actually did or not. And even if he did, he might not have known it was counterfeit. I was once given a counterfeit note in change and didn't know until I tried to spend it. It's not exactly a serious crime unless there were millions of dollars involved and he knew what he was doing. He did have a record, but it seems he was trying to turn his life around, even if he faltered from time to time. He certainly didn't deserve to die like that though.
You still on the mend?
No matter what way you think of it Chauvin can never be allowed back into society otherwise he's dead. I can recall a black Congress woman stating that if he wasn't found guilty the mob would invade the courtroom.
I still have the damage to the right side of the heart to mend. It was starved of blood when the clot blocked the lungs. Otherwise I'm coming on well. Thanks
I doubt that he intended to kill the man, so he should just have been charged with manslaughter, not murder, and obviously discharged from the force. I think a big part of the reason he was found guilty was because of the fear of what might happen among sections of the black community if he wasn't, so it seems that had an influence on people's thinking - whether they were aware of it or would admit to it or not.
Glad to hear you're getting better.
The video of the incident alone shows the officer's actions went on far longer than necessary and resulted in the suspects death.
Whether it was a racist incident is incidental to it being excessive force.
The fact is physical strength is a requirement of policing in the US and those police officers that excercise to stay healthy often body build and use steroids to give them an extra edge. This combined with the overall police attitude of us versus them doesn't bode well whether they encounter a white or any other suspect.
In the UK things are not much different with excessive force. In the US guns are part of the culture. Armed British police are as bad.
A few years ago armed Metropolitan Police chased an unsuspecting man into the London Underground, they raced into the train car and shot this unarmed man to death. This could have been any passenger their actions befell.
In this case the female senior officer instead of being punished was promoted.
Was the man they shot actually guilty of any crime, T47, or was it a case of mistaken identity? Either way, shocking. I suspect those in the police force who want to 'play' with guns just can't wait to get a chance to use them, which results in them being a bit trigger happy. Too many of them don't seem to be in control of their emotions, which doesn't bode well for innocent members of the public who might vaguely match the description of a suspect.
In 2005 after terrorist bombs in London the police were watching a house they thought was connected to terrorist activity. When someone left he was followed then chased into the Underground and shot. If they thought he was a bomber he should have been stopped when leaving the house not chased through the streets.
While the police have the right and duty to safeguard the public, creating a chase then gunning down a suspect was an incompetent operation, for which the officer in charge was promoted after it was established the man was completely innocent.
Seems to be a case of "Here's your guns for today, lads - don't come back without using them!", T47. As for promoting the incompetent, the editor of The Dandy (along with some of the contributors) doomed it with his decisions , so was then given The Beano to work his 'magic' on. Strewth! Thankfully, his tenure didn't last too long.
Post a Comment