Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit has put up a long set of videos of the riots, here. Be sure to share this widely. People need to know what has happened. This is not about rectifying an injustice.
The vast majority of the people I see in these clips are young, probably in their late teens, early 20s. Many are white, and they look like gawky college students, out for a bit of mayhem and maybe to steal some stuff. They are the sort of morons who get called – not always correctly – as “snowflakes” – the ones beating up people they dislike on university campuses, etc. There are a few women in here too, nearly all young.
Because nearly all are wearing masks, video ID recognition tech will not pick them up, but they may find they still get identified at some point, and I hope – naively perhaps – that some of these idiots are hit with the full force of the law.
Obviously some of them are angry for a host of reasons, and such is the wreckage of our culture and education system that they lack the intellectual tools to know what to do other than strike out in rage. Ayn Rand wrote about this phenomenon 50 years ago. She contrasted people rolling around in the mud at Woodstock with Aldrin and Armstrong walking on the Moon, – see this article. In the end you need to choose a side: are you for values grounded on reason, independence and liberty, or are you a nihilist who wants to blank out your brain with trash?
I imagine that quite a lot of the youngsters here are hoping to go to college, or in it, or have recently graduated. The kind of people on the receiving end of their thuggery – security guards, truck drivers, store clerks, maintenance staff and so forth – are not from such backgrounds. Another point, which is not original to me of course, is that the “Antifa” thugs involved in some of this are well organised, and have probably planned these attacks for some time. Some may even be in cahoots with radical Islamist groups (although I haven’t seen any specific evidence of this so far, to be clear), and funded by people who want to do ill to the US. In any event, any graduate who has left college, been involved in this, and now wonders why he or she struggles to pay off their huge loan for studying some liberal arts degree might want to ask themselves a few questions. (A side-issue is that much of the Western Higher Ed. sector needs to be drastically restructured. What we are seeing here are mal-educated people, and on a large scale.)
Here is a podcast from Reason Magazine involving a discussion about the mayhem. Charles Cooke and Kevin D Williamson of National Review have their take on this, and other issues, here.
There hasn’t actually been an injustice yet. These clowns are demanding justice without actually waiting to see what the outcome of any investigation is. Of course, whatever the result is, it won’t be the one that they demand.
“What do they teach them at these universities?”, as the professor in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe might ask. Antifa rioters have clearly learned a lot about safely confronting a part-supportive, part-weak-willed liberal society. They clearly know something (but not that much) about evading a legal system devised on the assumption that crime is very rare and huge resources will be devoted to investigating it before conviction. But these rioters do not know much about combat in an urban environment.
Long ago, speaking to some lefty college campus, Kurt Vonnegut urged students to stop opposing military on campus and be part of university-group/National Guard weekend exercises
(quoted from old memory). Wearing a mask is poor protection against enemies who shoot those they don’t need as prisoners and wound those they do. And as for mere technique of moving safely in an urban environment – these rioters haven’t got a clue. When assigned be-the-enemy roles in exercises, we all noticed what one clever, strait-laced girl expressed to me as a very surprised realisation afterwards: “Rioting is fun!” We also learned that untrained follow-their-noses rioters break every rule of combat in an urban environment as completely as if they had learned them for the express purpose of not following them.
When (and if – but ‘when’ is beginning to look like it can stand alone), Trump deploys regulars, I trust we shall find out that the US infantry do know something about combat in an urban environment. Meanwhile I am slightly surprised that no association of store-owners has a vet to advise them. Of course, any that do might know better than to publicise an encounter, being well aware that the Democrat authorities in these areas would treat them as the criminals.
“What do they teach them at these universities?” When the rioters chant that the state is a Nazi oppressor, do none of them take that seriously?
Screw “the full force of the law”. They need–preferably private–bullets and lots of them.
Think finale of “The Wild Bunch”.
We really ought to be prepared for Riots Part Two, when the jury comes back with Not Guilty.
1. Official Medical Examiner delivers his report detailing Floyd’s morbid obesity, his pre-existing heart condition with hypertension, his high fentanyl blood level, and a lack of structural damage that might be expected in a positional asphyxiation death.
2. A few days later, Family-Hired-Coroner-To-The-Stars shows up and (!!) finds clear signs of strangulation injury and positional asphyxiation, and labels the death a homicide. (He’ll be paid out of the proceeds of the not-yet-filed civil suit for millions.)
3. Later that day, Official Medical Examiner – a position appointed by top county officials – amends his report to say, oh yeah, sorry, the cop certainly did it.
Could a reasonable person have some doubt that the cop directly caused Floyd’s death without some other factor playing a large hand in that death? (Note that kneeling on the back of someone’s neck is an officially-approved control technique here in Hennepin County – cops are trained to do it.) Might that reasonable person properly infer that politics have played a hand in crafting the ME report?
All in all, I’d take that case to trial. And, if they do get him off the most serious charge, these initial riots are going to seem tame.
There hasn’t actually been an injustice yet.
The video footage of the guy being held on the ground and saying “I can’t breathe” is fairly conclusive.
The officer in question is, so I understand, a person with a poor conduct record.
The police and national guard could clear out these rioters if they were allowed to do so. This isn’t a question of numbers, or training, or equipment, or tactics. It’s a question of will. We’re all meant to believe these people are “mostly peaceful” and have a grievances which justify all the rioting and looting, so to do more than try to contain them in certain neighborhoods would be a sign of tyranny on the part of the government.
Each day these riots are unresolved erodes the US government’s claim to legitimacy. At all levels.
J.P. – as Peter Schiff points out.
“Looting is socialism without the middle man”.
These people, white and black, are following the “Social Justice” doctrine their teachers and university professors have taught them.
That is what “Social Justice” is – looting and murdering.
That is why it sickens me when people (including some British “Conservatives” – and many priests and Church minsters) use the term “Social Justice” as if it was a good thing.
Not the EVIL thing it actually is.
In the end everyone has to CHOOSE.
Are you on the side of traditional justice, to-each-their-own.
Or are you on the of “Social Justice” – the “distribution” of income and wealth according to some principle of “fairness”.
People have to choose – because these principles are at war.
Although it’s a technicality as regards riots – the rioters don’t care – I think what Stonyground meant is that there is good reason to anticipate a trial. In one sense, Johnathan is right – Mr Floyd is dead where he should instead have been detained and headed for trial – in another sense, Stonyground is right – IIUC, PC Chauvin is detained and headed for trial.
Most cops in strongly-liberal cities have a “poor conduct record.”
Their elected and appointed bosses are constantly trying to please several different constituencies. To please those with a stake in society, they push and pass strong security policies – placing a lot of power in the hands of the police. To please the minority communities is harder – they must somehow disavow those same strong policies as they enact them.
And so they enact cop review policies that have no barrier to entry – which means that a huge percentage of arrests draw some complaint through the complaint system – and they staff the judging functions with “community voices”, which means a lot of complaints that wouldn’t pass muster in any court end up being upheld.
Plus, if you look at this cop’s actual record, most complaints were dropped, and the ones that weren’t dropped named him, not as a miscreant, but as being in the company of miscreants. He was “involved” in one shooting, which means that another cop in the bunch shot someone – he didn’t. Same story in another use-of-force complaint – he was there, and thus “involved.”
This all serves the politicians’ ends, as every time something like this happens, they can point to how they’ve done everything humanly possible to stop such beasts – they can show how the cop’s record clearly makes him rogue – but that’s because most every cop has some such backstory. They’re all “rogue” – they all have complaints – but we never hear about it until a pol needs cover for the system he’s enacted.
As a human, my reaction to the video was, someone shoot him so he gets off that guy’s neck. But that’s possible only because we all blind ourselves to what the cops do every single day, and what drives them to do it, and how we actually want them to do it until it becomes inconvenient to us. If we’re not individually fighting this every day, then right now we’re just another bunch of preening signaling asshats – me included.
(“We want them on that wall, we need them on that wall . . . “)
The officer has a poor conduct record (define euphemism) and the victim left much to be desired. The three other officers present and possibly participating in the hold-down have so far avoided much scrutiny which may or may not be related to their non-white ethnicity. Don’t expect that to change much in the near future.
The outrage has a life of its own irrespective of whatever the facts may have been. Too many people and institutions have invested political capital in seeing it through tour their desired ends. Unless Officer Chauvelin undergoes an unexpected Epstein-style suicide, which would conveniently remove him from the picture, this will run and run.
Perhaps, and there again perhaps the how-to-control-riots lesson that I hope Trump will soon give will ensure the second lot of riots never get off the ground this far.
On the other hand, bobby b, you are a lawyer with constitutional knowledge. Suppose that verdict occurred and caused trouble. Could Trump then remind us of Eisenhower sending the 101st into Little Rock in the 1950s and do the same in the twin cities – doubtless after a speech about “Can’t trust Democrats now any more than then”? Just a thought about what all might follow your scenario.
There’s a very strong argument that that is the entire endgame here.
“If we can get Trump to kill someone, Biden wins.”
My own Democrat governor spent an awful lot of time when this all began doing nothing, but daring Trump to do something. He clearly wanted all of the blame to be federal blame, not state blame. It played out exactly this way regarding the virus, too – the liberal states were yelling for the federal government to step in, to provide everything, so that it became a Trump problem. Only when it became clear that Trump wasn’t biting did anyone take any actions themselves.
They all understand federalism, but they bet that their voters don’t.
Sure, @Bobby B – All of that may be true and Floyd was just a dead man walking. The problem is that what triggered his death was not walking up the street or screwing his (now multimillionaire) wife, it was an encounter with the cops which, at least on the face of it, was disproportionately brutal given the criminal act of the utterance of a fake $20 note.
So even if there ARE mitigating circumstances around the arrest itself, it cannot be denied that the death occurred when Floyd was already in custody and unable to resist further. At the very least the cops were complicit in manslaughter even if not explicitly murder. The cops ain’t walking away from this with a bunch of union bought fancy lawyers.
“Social Justice” is little more than the Roman mob of ancient times justified by modern Cultural Marxists and anarchists. It has no place in the West.
One of Trump’s best qualities is his ability to not take the bait.
He could have taken action during the Russia scam – it was within his power to cut off people and investigations – but he restrained himself and let it play out. He could have jumped in and taken the lead in dealing with the virus, but he didn’t – he offered help and resources. He could have jumped in here with a federalized National Guard, but he didn’t.
I think he’ll offer federal help and manpower to whomever asks for it publicly, but he’s going to insist on that level of commitment – a buy-in – before it happens. Otherwise (and I’m sure this was the intention on the parts of the Democrat state leaders) he has to own every bad thing that happens.
They just keep setting traps, and he keeps brushing away the cover and making them look foolish.
I agree, and Donny’s Whitehouse Council simply reminds the president of his Oath of Office (the bit about “Protect and Defend the Constitution”) and then points to the 10th Amendment which effectively says that it’s the states problem first and foremost.
Donny will help any state that asks for it, but the governor will have to ask. Until they do, it is and remains a states responsibility, not a federal one. I don;t think his approach is naive, stupid or callous, it is simply obeying the constitution.
I actually phrased that wrong. What I heard was that these protesters were demanding justice for Floyd. There is a procedure that is always followed in cases like this one and, once the procedure has taken place, justice is then handed out. At that point there may be a case to answer that justice hasn’t been seen to be done, that the perpetrator has not been properly dealt with. However, until all this has taken place the protesters have no case.
John Galt (June 3, 2020 at 10:54 am), there’s a well known aphorism that if you don’t want anyone to die from a law being enforced, don’t have that law. In his post to which you respond, I think bobby b is applying that to the details of this case.
It may well be the trial of PC Chauvin will convict him of murder. IIUC, bobby b is informing us not to assume that it must; not to assume that, by the rules of procedure under innocent until proven guilty, a jury cannot (validly, without prejudice or contrivance) find him not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. IIUC, bobby b is saying he would take that case to trial if he were PC Chauvin’s defence lawyer, not just tell his client to plead guilty to all charges.
Bobby b will correct me if I have misunderstood him. If I have understood him correctly, your reply was not a reply to what bobby b said, nor telling him what he did not fully know.
Just my 0.02p on this FWIW.
BTW what bobby b says about the combined phoniness of PC-run cities’ policing-versus-complaints-procedures is also wise to bear in mind.
I think what Stonyground meant is that there is good reason to anticipate a trial.
Indeed. Due process needs to be observed and seen to be so.
A point that people on this site ought to take into account is the immunity that cops get – often strongly argued for by the police unions. Arguably that is part of the problem. The increasingly paramilitary nature of police, made worse of course by the catastrophic War on Drugs, is a big part of the problem.
Genuinely good cops need some of this nonsense to be reformed. Because make no mistake, some of what goes on among the police forces in the US, and elsewhere, is unacceptable. Check out this report about dodgy police officers in Minnesota. https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-police-officers-convicted-of-serious-crimes-still-on-the-job/437687453/
What part of the law covering the utterance of fake $20 bills does it say “Make sure to lean on the perps head until he suffocates?”
@JG:
Ummm….when he’s a fentanyl&meth-crazed beserker, twice your size?
For all we know, he may already have been doomed from an overdose, just a bit of time needed. It’s far from clearly established yet what killed him: mebbe drugs, mebbe the neck press was the cause, and if it was, whether it was an approved or banned technique.
Let the investigation, and if required, the trial proceed as per process.
Then will be the time to consider the cop’s guilt. He may be a thug, he may be bent, he may be an honest man in a BAU arrest that went violent in a moment.
All we know is what the media are telling us. And we can trust that completely, of course. No agenda there.
Look no further than that there were 4 cops in that arrest. One is getting the focussed hate, the other 3, equally complicit in any wrongdoing in that arrest, are blackwashed out of the story. I wonder why?
Johnathan;
“The video footage of the guy being held on the ground and saying “I can’t breathe” is fairly conclusive.
This is indeed “fairly conclusive” but of a crime not an injustice, as to that time will tell
“
Between 4th and 9th June there will be 4 services held for the late Mr Floyd. Two will be memorials in Minneapolis and North Carolina, the latter to include a public viewing. There will also be a celebration of life service in Houston complete with a 6 hour public visitation (different to a public viewing?) and finally a private funeral the following day also in Houston. Not a “family members only” affair though as the likes of Joe Biden will be in attendance. I understand that at least two of the services will be televised.
I repeat myself. This will run and run.
@John:
Martyrs gotta be milked.
“Martyrs to the freedom I will provide…”
Floyd opposed arrest. (Arrest for an apparently good reason – the fake bill and his refusal to return the merchandise).
If a cop tells you: “please get into that patrol car” you should obey, else the cops are apt to try to force you in….
That there is audio of Trump’s recent chastisement of governors is no mistake or leak.
It’s Trump providing cover for those governors, Dems and Repubs both, for them to use their state national guard resources. They can say “I had to do it under local control to keep Bad Trump from doing it.”
Why did Trump allow this audio to get out? On purpose, because he really does give a damn about stopping the violent rioting.
Just heard Mr Johnson at his press conference parroting ‘Black lives matter‘ rather than ‘all lives matter‘ and disparaging President Trump and making it sound like the death in police custody was something to do with President Trump, and without calling riots ‘riots’ or condemning the killings by rioters and, as he spoke, a mini-riot was kicking off in Whitehall outside Downing Street from the local communist mob. Concerned was expressed that mobs should be socially-distanced.
Perhaps because Mr Johnson called himself a ‘Sinophile’ without mentioning Taiwan, they took him for a Maoist deviationist?
His answer to car workers in Coventry worried about their jobs was to promise electric cars and batteries. And the quarantine nonsense has been rolled out to utterly destroy the travel industry never mind any hope of even a brief escape.
It would be praise with faint damnation to call him an utter fool.
“Just heard Mr Johnson at his press conference parroting ‘Black lives matter‘ rather than ‘all lives matter‘ and disparaging President Trump and making it sound like the death in police custody was something to do with President Trump”
From the press conference:
Based on that quote (and its surround), I’d say Johnson is choosing to dodge the question with boilerplate – which bores me (as the question doubtless bored him) but does not necessarily cause me to rate him an ‘utter fool’ over this particular issue. “Everybody’s lives matter, black lives matter” is dodging but it is not vile in the way uttering “black lives matter” alone is vile. (After all, I can imagine writing e.g. ‘All lives matter (therefore black lives matter)’ in the course of some explanation.). The mention of Trump would be understandable if the questioner, Beth, had asked, “What would you say to president Trump about…?” and his reply “to President Trump, to everybody in the United States” would be just another dodge, getting away from the question’s narrowness while avoiding a follow-up “But what would you say to president Trump specifically?” attack. (If of course Beth did not mention Trump then Boris was foolish to do so. I could check but I have a day job and this is very boring in itself.)
Either Boris is poorly informed about recent events in the US (to be fair, he too has a day job) or he decided the game was not worth the candle for him to have the MSM writing about how racist he was on this issue by daring to utter non-boilerplate rather than wrap his “protest peacefully” and “everybody’s lives matter” inside loads of it. Whether Boris ends the BBC tax or not interests me more than how many boilerplate fight-avoiding ‘answers’ he gives PC MSM trash on secondary issues.
Just my 0.02p FWIW.
Would funding by George Soros clarify this source of the violence?
“The mention of Trump would be understandable if the questioner, Beth, had asked, “What would you say to president Trump about…?””
It was something along the lines of “There are protests in London, the people there cannot speak directly to President Trump, but you can. What would you say on their behalf?” That’s not a quote – just an extremely loose paraphrase from memory. I can’t be bothered to go back and transcribe the rest. I gather from comments elsewhere that Beth Rigby is notoriously SJW.
My impression was that the reply was diplomatic, aimed at avoiding controversy. Bear in mind that these sorts of questions are intended as traps, to get Boris to say something that can be used to attack either Boris (if he doesn’t agree with the anti-racist sentiment) or Trump (as in “Even Boris criticises…”). Boris says the minimum needed to avoid trouble, without giving the impression of dodging. He certainly didn’t disparage Trump, who I expect would agree with the obviousness of what he said, but he didn’t explicitly condemn the rioters either. It was a non-comment – a statement of obvious generalities.
I’m not a fan of George Soros and agree that he provides financial support to some of the most egregious leftwing organisations, but there is a long way between disliking the guy and accusing him of widespread conspiracy to incite violence to the point of sedition.
The aid-and-support given to rioters, looters and the rest of the rabble rousing didn’t magically materialise out of thin air. There are lots of videos showing the perpetrators without their masks, such that they can be identified, investigated and prosecuted.
Things like the conveniently placed deliveries of bricks don’t happen without being paid for and that cash comes from somewhere.
If Trump is genuine about crushing Antifa and their anarchist brethren in the heel of the US justice system (and he may be just posturing during the current crisis) AND the FBI actually does it’s job then we may find out who has been funding and organising this mindless violence.
Trial by media, even trial by blogosphere serves nothing and no-one though.
Well, I can’t blame you there. 🙂 I appreciate what you’ve already done to transcribe the context of the quote. Yes, Beth Rigby stinks of SJW. I could not agree more that
My describing Boris as ‘dodging’ was as in ‘dodging the trap’. One likes to see the intended-prey turn on the SJW would-be hunter and expose the phoniness of it all, but I’m sure many a time Boris is just tired and/or bored and/or eager to reach what he wants to say, so just dodges the trap rather than seeking to demolish it. We appear to be broadly in agreement here.
‘Mal educated’. Indeed. A dose of tertiary syphilis would be more intellectually stimulating than a dose of tertiary education. The institutions of tertiary education seldom make a contribution to knowledge and, to misquote Maurice Bowra slightly, ‘they do not even make a contribution to ignorance’.
Nope. There were four cops standing around. He was already cuffed. All they had to do was throw him in the back of a squad car like they were trained to do. Cops do this routinely with large, powerful, medicated men without killing them.
I’m prepared to cut cops some slack when confronted with armed suspects. You only have a split second to decide if he’s dropping that gun or turning it on you. But there’s no excuse for what this cop did.
bobby b
All in all, I’d take that case to trial. And, if they do get him off the most serious charge, these initial riots are going to seem tame.
Irrespective of the actual legal process, do you really think that is wise? I mean where are you going to find a jury that will not want to throw away the key? You may be a skilled lawyer, but it seems to me that there is nobody in the US, never mind in Minnesota who hasn’t already formed a very strong opinion on this. How could they not? Moreover, even if that one juror had a little doubt, where would you find a man or woman brave enough to go against this overwhelming tide? Especially, as you rightly point out, the consequences of an acquittal or even a failure to convict on the most serious charge (manslaughter instead of murder), will send up a firestorm of unimaginable proportions.
Surely they will plead this out, and the defendants won’t get much for their guilty plea either, except perhaps some accommodation so that they are not actually ripped to pieces the first day they end up on the joint. Frankly, not that I am advocating for this, if I were that guy I’d be eating my gun.
BTW, how serious is the charge for the other guys “aiding and abetting”. IANAL, so my best efforts could not find the statute in the MN criminal code.
That’s key to stage one. I’ve seen few cases so well set up for a change of venue motion. Try picking a jury in Minneapolis of people who feel no personal stake in the outcome of this trial. Try finding people who will profess to not having read bookloads of “news” reports on the guilt of this guy. Find jurors who haven’t seen the video ten times minimum (important when the video is never accompanied by an explanation except for “here’s cop killing innocent lovable guy.”) Question a hundred potential jurors, and then make the venue motion, when it’s clear that everyone needs to be excluded.
The Batson rule in MN complicates this all – you cannot make challenges to a juror based on race – but what if the entire case hinges on race? Much easier for a judge to transfer than to face this issue in this specific case, I think (hope.) (Note: The link above is to the training manual for judges – how to be a judge according to MN law – and is an excellent source when you want to see what the judge has been trained to look for in a case.)
So you move trial to outside the metro area. Suddenly (given how MN demographics break down) you have a ton of potential jurors who voted for Trump, who are scandalized that this has gone on so long with no forceful pushback, and who don’t have the urban antipathy to cops. (This antipathy is very much an urban phenomenon.) You have lots of potential jurors who still see cops as their friends, beset upon by the urban hordes and their lackey politicians. (Display prominently a picture of Al Sharpton during some part of the trial. (Yes, in performing my duties as a defense attorney, I will use race as needed. So sue me. That’s my job.)
Keep in mind – I said that I’d take this to trial. You have to be “at trial” to make a change of venue motion, so I’ve satisfied my promise at this point. If I win the venue motion, I’m then bargaining for an involuntary manslaughter plea, with minimum time per MN sentencing guidelines. MN pols might well agree to a plea to a charge with “manslaughter” in the title and let my guy serve his very short time somewhere safe, because it might prevent Riots Part Two.
But even then, if we get the jury I dream of, we still turn that down and roll the dice. I need one juror to agree with me. The state needs twelve all in accord.
Can I get one juror to decide that the cop didn’t do anything THAT bad, given the pressures all cops face each and every day? My guy, and twenty other cops, are going to be up there testifying (to white conservative farmers and mechanics) that they act the way they act because of how their arrestees act, and that they don’t write the laws which they are ordered to uphold. They’ll testify that their bosses – the elected heads of MN – train them to use the neck hold to keep a suspect down, and that hearing their arrestee say “I can’t breathe” is usually a strong indication that he can breathe.
Can I get one juror to agree that the Medical Examiner’s report is at least suspicious on a good day, and clearly politically-driven on a bad one? (Heck, I’d still bet on this part even if I lost the venue motion and have to try this in Minneapolis.)
In any case, I see that the MN Attorney General – the execrable Keith Ellison – seems to have taken over the prosecution and added charges – some of which include the word “involuntary” – so my work may have already been done by a vote-hungry pol looking for a quick resolution. He’s saying this is not going to be an easy case to prosecute. We’ll see . . .
Sorry, forgot the last part.
Aiding and abetting:
“609.05 LIABILITY FOR CRIMES OF ANOTHER.
Subdivision 1.Aiding, abetting; liability.
A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.”
(If I’m criminally liable for the crime, I face the same penalties as the actual actor.)
Bobby b has been a valuable contributor on this thread (and many others, of course), informing us of things the MSM would rather we did not know. I wonder if his last paragraph, about the (indeed!) “execrable Keith Ellison”, relates to some willingness to allow a plea deal in order not to hear them “testify to what their bosses – the elected heads of MN – train them to use”, or am I just dreaming – are they confident their MSM friends can keep it from being noticed even after such court testimony? I can imagine the “execrable Keith Ellison” both eagerly avoiding that testimony and then as eagerly inciting riots against the ‘lenient’ judgement.
For the benefit of any thread-readers who have not seen it elsewhere, some autopsy details are here. (Despite the sensational headline, it would seem Floyd’s covid was asymptomatic and will not have contributed.)
“and that hearing their arrestee say “I can’t breathe” is usually a strong indication that he can breathe.”
It would also be worth mentioning that breathlessness is a recognised symptom of a heart attack. Suppose stress and physical exertion bring on a heart attack, the knee is placed there ready to hold the arrestee down but is actually applying no pressure, the arrestee feeling breathless complains of being unable to breathe, but the cops are all aware that the neck hold is not applying pressure, that being able to talk is evidence of this, and that arrestees commonly say things like this in an attempt to escape (I expect there are plenty of witnesses to that), and maybe they misinterpreted his heart attack-related complaints as standard behaviour for criminals trying to get out of being restrained.
Their training presumably takes into account the possibility of heart attacks and other genuine medical emergencies during arrest, but at the same time, faking a medical emergency can be expected of criminals if they know that buys them a better chance to escape. There’s a trade-off of risks.
On the other hand, while such restraints may be necessary when getting the cuffs on, they shouldn’t be necessary after. Pressure on the neck and chest during prone restraint are a common cause of death in custody. It’s very easy to get such restraint techniques wrong, even by accident, and cause injuries like snapped necks. And I’ve seen cops commenting on the number of badly trained cops they’ve seen carrying out dangerous, unnecessarily thuggish arrests that risk serious injury. In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they’re not. So I’d think the case is going to hinge on technical and medical evidence regarding restraint techniques and the training coppers get. I don’t know much about that, and I doubt most of the people commenting on Twitter do either.
This is why we have trials, presumption of innocence, examination of all the evidence, right to present a legal defence, and so on.
In lieu of comment, a few links:
“Tell me Black Lives Matter. You lied. You wanted to loot the store.”
“My sister is gone because one of you, a protester, shot my sister. A protester, not the police!”
And, on the anniversary of the Tianenmen massacre, “Our ‘protesters’ here would be the ones ordering the tanks onto the streets in Beijing. They would be the ones who are trying to suppress the pro-democracy, pro-freedom protesters, no quotation marks there, in Hong Kong today.”
@bobby b, if I ever get in any legal trouble, I’ll be calling you to represent me. 😀
No correction needed. Nailed it, as usual.
(ETA: “Niall’ed it”, perhaps? 😉 )
Candace Owens did a scorching periscope on this:
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1MYGNklYaYZJw
Well worth a listen, some atomic truth bombs are dropped.
Heard something on talk radio the other day that struck me as true. I would appreciate your take on it, esp. bobby b.
The caller sounded like an ex (retired?) LEO. He said in every police department that has bad actors, cops who are incompetent or just asshats, the other cops know who they are. The sergeants and lieutenants know. They could get rid of these guys…so why don’t they? If they got rid of these guys incidents like this one might be significantly rarer (sorry for presuming the white cop here might be a bad cop).
Or is the line between bad cop and the aggression and tactics required to be an urban cop not so clear?
“They could get rid of these guys…so why don’t they?”
Unions.
For such a supposedly capitalist country, the USA has extraordinarily powerful unions.
And they’re almost all a force for evil.
Police Unions Protect Bad Cops
Teachers Unions keep kids stupid
Auto Unions bankrupted their employers.
@Flubber
For such a supposedly capitalist country, the USA has extraordinarily powerful unions.
FWIW, I don’t think there is anything inherently un-capitalist about unions (though as I have said many times I really dislike the word “capitalist”. Using it is like giving ammo to the enemy.) Groups of people banding together to improve themselves is a perfectly legitimate exercise of free association. Even “closed shops” where the shop is closed by private agreement between the union and employer are perfectly legitimate (not dissimilar, for example, to a seller getting an exclusive distribution right in a geographical area in exchange for some benefit such as guaranteed volume.)
Now of course when the government starts to get involved and passing closed shop laws or laws privileging unions then that is a major problem. And when the government employees are unionized, especially in closed shop unions that is a major problem, verging on corruption.
Some things unions do are good. For example, if you get a union plumber you can have some confidence that they know what they are doing — the union is a seal of approval. Plus unions let people get group health insurance, retirement benefits etc. that are benefited greatly by incorporation. Even, it seems to me, unions bargaining collectively on behalf of fungible employees is largely a good exercise in free will.
A lot of the problems with unions tend to arise from the fact that they tend to be run by people like Arthur Scargil. But the problem there is not the union, it is the fact that an avowed communist has significant power.
“Groups of people banding together to improve themselves is a perfectly legitimate exercise of free association. Even “closed shops” where the shop is closed by private agreement between the union and employer are perfectly legitimate (not dissimilar, for example, to a seller getting an exclusive distribution right in a geographical area in exchange for some benefit such as guaranteed volume.)”
It’s called Protectionism. A group seeks a monopoly over supply, in order to engineer an artificial shortage of whatever it is they supply, to raise prices and thus benefit themselves at the expense of the consumer and the competition. Unions do it for the supply of labour, guilds do it for the supply of goods. Have you ever read Bastiat?
Brotherhood.
Cops are an insular group, because no one likes them. Their bosses resent them (because they’re their interface with problematic populations, and so end up causing trouble) but need them, bad citizens hate and fear them, and good citizens do their best to avoid them. When everyone hates your group, you turn to each other.
So it’s “us against them”, always. I’ll protect you, and you protect me. A good department will excise its bad parts, but it won’t allow outsiders to do it for them, because “they don’t understand the job.” A bad department will just protect every member, good or bad.
Here’s what the cops are saying about Floyd’s death – per LawOfficer.com:
https://www.lawofficer.com/minneapolis-disaster/
(Information you won’t get from the press.)
@Nullius in Verba
It’s called Protectionism. A group seeks a monopoly over supply, in order to engineer an artificial shortage of whatever it is they supply, to raise prices and thus benefit themselves at the expense of the consumer and the competition.
I’m not sure I agree with your designation of “protectionism” but I don’t particularly want to argue with you over words. (Unless you want to argue about the word “capitalism” I’m always up for that argument.) However, if the producer and consumer both agree to such an arrangement why exactly is that a problem? if they both feel they benefit in some way from the arrangement who exactly are you or I to tell them they can’t do it? There is no force or fraud involved here. So I am in favor of people making whatever interpersonal or inter-group relationships they want even if I think the relationship isn’t wise or is asymmetric. What the hell do I know about running a car company or a coal mine?
If people don’t want to work in such an arrangement they are free to go elsewhere and make a different arrangement.
FWIW, these sorts of arrangement happen all the time in business. I have a friend to sells a software product all over the world. However, in the USA he can only sell it through one reseller. They made this exclusive arrangement because they both judged it would be beneficial for them to do so. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
@Fraser Orr – The problem with closed shop unions is that it is pretty much the opposite of “Freedom of Association”, it is “Forced Association”, just like those Saturday morning parades that the Communists used to force the local proletariat into (“Because you like your apartment comrade…it would be a shame if you were to be evicted”).
Unions are just rent seekers attempting to gain advantage via threats to the producer, paid for by consumers. Why would any libertarian support that in any form? From medieval guilds to modern teaching unions they have been a detriment to the general public, even if their membership (and especially the union leadership) benefits.
So no, I ain’t buying your line of bullshit over unions, Frazer. Sorry.
According to the front page of the “Daily Telegraph” today as well has being fat and bald (and male) being BALD is a key indicator of how hard Covid 19 is going to hit person.
I am fat, and old, and a BALD man.
So let us hear it for “Covid! Covid! Covid!”.
The bit about drowning in my own fluids is nasty – but death itself, well that is not a problem.
Nullius may argue that if we if we all hide under the bed (in “Lockdown”) we will carry on – but it is quite mistaken.
We can not hide from a fecking virus – we can not even see the thing, and it goes through the air holes in the masks the regime insists we wear.
This virus appears designed (perhaps it actually was designed – or at least “tweaked”) to kill nasty old bald men like me.
I am not going to destroy the economy in order to cling on to life in a world that HATES men like me.
The “Gender Studies” crowd off to their Marxist BLM riots (where they celebrate the murder of black people such as DAVID DORN – murdered by the Social Justice Looters) – they can dance on my ashes, I do not care.
“But you could live a few weeks longer if we kept barbers and so on shut” is the most stupid “argument” I have heard in my entire life.
“We are just shutting down for a couple of weeks to flatten-the-curve” was the line in MARCH – it is now JUNE.
No more of this hiding under the bed – open up NOW.
“You will sing a different tune when you are drowning in your own fluids”.
No I will not sing a different tune – after all I will not be singing at all.
As much as I hate and despise modern Frankfurt School of Marxism culture – I do not want the young to starve to death.
And they will starve to death if this economic madness continues.
The financial situation is is CRITICAL.
And that will cost lives – vast numbers of lives.
I am dead in any case – either way. And I do not want to be in this world anyway – after all I am a “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, “Transphobe” – in short I am normal Western man, this world is not for us (not any more). Our time is over – we are better off dad.
But there is no need for the young to starve to death – so end the mad “lockdown” now, or they will starve to death when the economic crash finally hits.
Even as things are – 2021 will be terrible, and 2022 will be worse.
As for the Marxist “protests” – well, as I said, they could not give damn abut the deaths of DAVID DORN and other black people murdered by the Social Justice crowd
As Candice Owens rightly pointed out – when honest black people are murdered, BLM celebrates their deaths (at least in private – and, after all, the MLM Social Justice Marxists are the people who murdered these honest black people in the first place) they only care about what the Soviet Union called the “socially friendly element” criminals. But I still do not want all these young scum to STARVE TO DEATH in an economic breakdown.
I do not even want the Media Marxists to starve to death.
@John Galt
it is “Forced Association”
No it isn’t. Force means you don’t have a choice. You can always go get another job.
just like those Saturday morning parades that the Communists used to force the local proletariat into (“Because you like your apartment comrade…it would be a shame if you were to be evicted”).
Well that is because it wasn’t your apartment, right? All apartments were owned by the state. General Motors or their unions don’t own all the housing stock or all the grocery stores in Detroit, last a checked. All they can do is have a potential employer deny you a job at one specific employer. And employers have a perfect right to hire or fire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, including the fact that employing one person might mess up the employment structure they already have.
Unions are just rent seekers attempting to gain advantage via threats to the producer, paid for by consumers.
That is like saying that employment agencies are rent seekers, or grocery stores are rent seekers, or bank loans are rent seeking. In a sense they are true, but in another sense rent seeking is using the force of government to extract a payment. Unions have no power of force[*] though they have the power to make free choices that disadvantage others[**]. But nobody has the obligation to act in the best interest of anyone else.
Why would any libertarian support that in any form?
I don’t particularly like unions. I also don’t particularly like pepperoni pizza. But part of freedom is allowing others to do things that you don’t like or even disapprove of, assuming they are not actually stealing, or doing violence to others. At the heart of unionized labor is the idea that workers are fungible. Which, while true in some situations, offends my sense of humanity. But if people want to be fungible, or are unwilling to do the work to distinguish themselves, then that is their business.
Any BTW, I said originally that I think government employees should not be allowed to unionize because it places large amounts of political power and government largess in the hands of a tiny unaccountable minority. Unaccountable even to democratically elected politicians.
[*] This is not always strictly true. In many jurisdictions there are laws favoring unions such as making it illegal to break strikes or making closed shops mandatory. These are a different category, and they are absolutely wrong.
[**] To be pedantic individuals have the right to freely chose to proxy their choices to leaders based on the view that the advantages of the collective are larger than the disadvantages of their agreeing with some specific choices. We do this all the time. It is why we have homeowners associations and backgammon clubs.
“Unless you want to argue about the word “capitalism” I’m always up for that argument.”
I define ‘capitalism’ as the separation of ownership of the means of production from the labourers. Protectionism isn’t inconsistent with capitalism, but it is inconsistent with the free market. But that’s just arguing about word choice, not content.
“However, if the producer and consumer both agree to such an arrangement why exactly is that a problem? if they both feel they benefit in some way from the arrangement who exactly are you or I to tell them they can’t do it?”
If the producer and consumer jointly agree to burn $20 bills belonging to the consumer, that’s their choice. If the producer and consumer agree that the consumer pays the producer and get nothing in return, they’re free to make that arrangement. If the consumer and producer agree to raise prices 100%, with no improvement in quality, when cheaper goods are available elsewhere, that’s totally up to them.
The argument of free trade is not that you should not be allowed to voluntarily engage in Protectionism, but that it costs you more. It hurts the general interests of mankind. But if it’s an informed choice – if you have not been fooled into thinking it is somehow to your advantage – then that’s not a moral problem.
It becomes more of a problem when not only are people fooled into thinking it is to their advantage, but those not fooled and not part of the conspiracy are not given the choice. The one is fraud, the other force.
“I have a friend to sells a software product all over the world. However, in the USA he can only sell it through one reseller. They made this exclusive arrangement because they both judged it would be beneficial for them to do so.”
Sure. By selling through one reseller, with who you have an exclusive agreement, you can better control and thereby constrain supply, and thus raise profits. The end consumer pays a higher price. The other resellers are locked out. Competition is excluded. The reseller can raise prices and worsen conditions of sale with no risk of being undercut, and thus gains, and those gains may be shared with the producer via this exclusive agreement. There is therefore no pressure to lower prices, or improve conditions. And less software is sold to be used, to the general detriment of mankind.
That’s not to say it should be forbidden, of course. The Free Market holds that the proper response to artificial shortages is competition. A competitor making software with the same function can sell their product cheaper by selling through any reseller. Making your own product more expensive is only ever a temporary advantage, it creates the opportunity for competitors, and over an entire society you always lose more from every other industry engaging in the same Protectionist practice than you gain from protecting your own industry. For we are all consumers as well as producers.
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 10.
In my view, Bastiat’s very readable book should be required reading on every school curriculum. It’s far more useful and necessary for future citizens to be able to understand the world and engage in the democratic decisionmaking process than trigonometry or the dates of the monarchs of England. But you can imagine how the teaching unions would react.
You’re entitled to your opinion Paul, but I don’t see it the same way. Unions serve the enemy, so why should I give them any room for existence.
@bobby b
Here’s what the cops are saying about Floyd’s death – per LawOfficer.com:
This article, and some of you comments here Bobby, make me tremble for my country.
If these guys are acquitted, it’ll make what we have now look like a dust up at the county fair. If they were acquitted I think there is a fair chance that they would be hunted down by the mob, dragged from their beds and hung from the nearest tree.
It makes me wonder how much “due process” is worth. I understand that “due process” is the foundation for our whole country, what separates us from the barbarians, but I think the acquittal of these guys could lead to an actual shooting civil war.
Bobby b (June 5, 2020 at 6:46 pm), thank you for your “information you won’t get from the press” link). I was on the point of asking you for some link to Minneapolis policy/training on neck-holds; your link (as well as being interesting in itself) has a link to that.
I had already worked out that one thing it seemed almost impossible Mr Floyd could have died of as such was asphyxiation though neck crushed by knee, and that his death may have been practically-speaking almost irreversible by early in the video that was used to incite this.
This has been educational for me because, while I despised the rioters from the start, I fell for the narrative as regards the cops in the first days of this. They may, of course, prove to deserve conviction but it is clear there is a very possible scenario in which they deserve acquittal. At first, the narrative had me completely fooled – as it still has many fooled – that there was no argument and but one possible view.
I’ve been cleaning political correctness out of my mind for decades. This shows me that not only do I still have work to do, but they can still shove more of it back in, at least for a while (and who knows what they’ve got completely past me that I still haven’t wised up to!)
Nullius in Verba
The argument of free trade is not that you should not be allowed to voluntarily engage in Protectionism, but that it costs you more.
That may or may not be true. If a particular arrangement of union/factory produces inefficiently then the free market has a solution — start another business, and compete with them. But even so, free markets don’t by any means always produce perfectly optimal outcomes, transactions costs, externalities and many other things mess that up. But the overall picture is that it is better to allow people to freely chose (to, for example, join a union, or have an employer engage in an exclusive contract with a union) than it is to not allow people to freely chose. When you can’t freely chose someone else gets to chose for you. And that person is usually the worst sort of person.
It hurts the general interests of mankind. But if it’s an informed choice
But it doesn’t. Allowing people freedom to choose, even to make bad choices, helps mankind not hurts it. Not every choice is beneficial on the whole, but the fact that you can chose is massively beneficial (both in terms of economics and just plain humanity.)
It becomes more of a problem when not only are people fooled into thinking it is to their advantage, but those not fooled and not part of the conspiracy are not given the choice. The one is fraud, the other force.
But don’t you think people are independent moral agents? Isn’t their responsibility to make good choices and not be fooled? Of course fraud is a different matter, and I agree that it is a hidden form of force, but absent fraud you are equally free to make dumb choices. Even really dumb choices like choosing pepperoni pizza instead of the objectively superior sausage pizza.
Sure. By selling through one reseller, with who you have an exclusive agreement, you can better control and thereby constrain supply, and thus raise profits.
But employers who hire via unions, even exclusively via unions, have made a determination that it is to their benefit to do so. Nobody is forcing them to do so — they could find other ways to fill their chairs, but they consider the union approach better (for example, it might be easier to negotiate with one person rather than 10,000 or the union might manage certain employee functions for them, or, the simple fact is that the union might be the easiest way for them to fill the seats.) Who are you or I judge them wrong, assuming that neither of us has ever run a coal mine or a car company?
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
FWIW, this is also one of my favorite quotes from Smith. I was a student at the University of Glasgow and walked past the Adam Smith building almost daily to get to the library. So I am a big fan of him. However, pithy though this quote might be it is a shame people stop reading there. Here is what comes after it:
“It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies. . . . A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows, and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary. An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole.”
Which is to say the problem is not guilds colluding to raise their prices, it is the government providing a framework to enforce such collusion. The problem is not that company A, B and C agree to raise their prices in tandem, it is that company D is prevented from coming along and undercutting their scheme and destroying their cartel.
And so back to unions, the problem is not that GM agrees to a closed shop with the Union. It is that FOMV (Fraser Orr Motor Vehicles) cannot come along, start a car company, employ all those guys who don’t want to be in the union and beat out the inefficiency that the union agreement might cause. In organizations like car companies that are highly subsidized and regulated FOMV doesn’t stand a chance.
However, the solution to bad choices in a world where people are free to choose, is competition from people making good choices.
Let me add:
I heard from an involved lawyer – I haven’t seen this confirmed in print anywhere yet, so take it with that caveat – that two of the four cops were very very new – like, in their first week or so of duty. I cannot see them being convicted, given that they placed no hands on anyone. They were in no position to alter the situation.
I know – or at least knew, back when I was active – several of the lawyers who have signed on as the cops’ defense. Excellent lawyers, and successful enough to not have to take on losing cases. Normally, the high-buck crimdef lawyer runs from stone losers. Bad for business. That they’re on-board tells me lots about the likely outcome.
I would tremble, Fraser. It’s going to be ugly – probably more for Chicago than Minneapolis – unless it’s all stalled enough so that these concepts can be percolated out and down and enough people start to see clearly before the announcements. And, even before we reach that point – the Minneapolis City Council is today discussing vastly overhauling and shrinking the Mpls police department. The City Council has thirteen members – twelve are hard-core Democrats from the AOC wing, and the other is a Greenie. The votes for dismantling the police are already there.
And if we do come to strife, my first shots will be for the heads of the reporters who have outright lied about all of this for the sake of clicks and The Cause.
“Allowing people freedom to choose, even to make bad choices, helps mankind not hurts it.”
Yes. Agreed. I’m not arguing they shouldn’t have freedom to choose. I’m arguing it’s a bad choice.
Like, people should be free to vote Socialist. That doesn’t mean Socialism is a good idea.
Why do American Police look like soldiers?
If the police are going to behave like military, why even bother with police at all? The police merely represent a waste of taxpayers money as they perform no useful community function.
The solution to this might be to give black people guns so they can shoot men like Chauvin and solve the problem in seconds.
Because we send them in undermanned to clean up our social messes, against bad people armed almost as well as the cops.
And them we whine when they do what we’ve hired them to do.
As an ex-crimdef lawyer and someone with stitch-scars on his head from youthful protests, I have no great love for our system of policing. But we made that system, and we own it, and to blame it just on individual cops is misguided.
I think most of us – me included – just about fell over ourselves prefacing our vitriol over the riots with the caveat of “of course I hate police thuggery, but . . . ”
I wondered how long it would take to get to this point. Due process is something we’re guaranteed in the context of government action against us. But what if the government merely subcontracts out all of its powers to private actors?
We now have a deep state and press all run by one specific NGO – The Party. Our constitution doesn’t protect us from The Party. Twitter deletions don’t violate the Constitution. Private employers firing people for political beliefs doesn’t violate the Constitution. Lying in news accounts doesn’t violate the Constitution. They figured out how to get around it.
So it’s the Trolley Problem, is it? Never liked Utilitarianism. Fucking evil philosophy, frankly.
“I think most of us – me included – just about fell over ourselves prefacing our vitriol over the riots with the caveat of “of course I hate police thuggery, but . . . ””
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but you can only judge on the basis of what people knew at the time. It’s not unreasonable to jump to a tentative belief (even one we don’t like) based on what we’re told while waiting for more evidence to come in, the important thing is to keep an open mind and listen to other viewpoints.
“I wondered how long it would take to get to this point. Due process is something we’re guaranteed in the context of government action against us. But what if the government merely subcontracts out all of its powers to private actors?”
What if it’s the other way round? What if this is how private actors behave, and have always behaved, and ‘government’ was simply a device to set some limits and controls on this universal human tendency?
We were told about it 160 years ago, but we still haven’t learned.
“So it’s the Trolley Problem, is it? Never liked Utilitarianism. Fucking evil philosophy, frankly.”
It depends on how you look at it. The alternatives are no picnic, either.
My “two* people, I’m now down to one. I’m sure gyms and stuff are important.
All we asked, was for a month or so, to do what was asked. But no. To follow the advice, but no.
And now, we sit here, today, and we’re still attempting to open up, to say it’s the right thing.
my god.
bobby b (June 5, 2020 at 10:40 pm ), you will observe I have made use of what I reached from the link you provided (in most timely fashion – exactly as I was about to ask for one). Thanks for your information – you got us thinking much faster than we otherwise would, I suspect. (If you want an acknowledgement in my latest post, just say.)
Charles Murray argues that the whole modern discrimination-law business was kick-started in the 1950s over the claim (not without content) that negroes faced such statistically overwhelming consistency of discrimination in the US that freedom’s argument (if this baker won’t bake you a cake, go to the other baker down the street) was insufficient, and laws were needed.
In the UK, this was never so: the 1967 laws were to punish us for what we might do and for Labour to be PC, not because the stats justified that argument. In the US, the stats were far higher, but of course the argument that the habits were dying, and that ending southern Democrat suppression of black voting was key to speeding that death, is one freedom-lovers like.
The people who love such laws today will never give them to us, even if we had the stats and were corrupted enough to ask for them, so we’ll need to find freedom’s solution. That can include ending legal fixes, e.g. the common carrier contradiction that Twitter can discriminate yet not be held responsible for content, and scams, e.g. our taxes being looted by The Party.
“My “two* people, I’m now down to one.”
My condolences.
“I’m sure gyms and stuff are important.”
They are. Life is worth living because of what we do with the time we have. Merely existing for as long as possible is not what life is about. Every part of our lives is important.
Life is always a mixture of good bits and bad bits. Celebrate all the happy times we experience, expand and extend them in what we choose to remember, don’t dwell on the parts you don’t like. That makes life bitter, an endless cycle of suffering. Don’t forget the lesson of the vinegar tasters.
Thank you, Nullius. I appreciate that.
I appreciate both the reference, and that you were thoughtful and kind enough, and “remembered enough” to use that particular reference for me.
Our thoughts do sometimes wander far afield 🙂 – and can cheer you up by taking you out of today’s worries.
Anyone interested in how a Samizdata quote of the day
ends up in a discussion of vinegar tasting can click here and scroll down to enjoy memories of last year, when Wuhan virus and lockdown were not thought of.
If you do, don’t miss the poem quoted by Julie-near-Chicago on the way.