the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Do you actually believe that Noor intentionally shot Damand, but Chauvin didn't intentionally asphyxiate Floyd?

As I stated earlier, when the cop is non-white and/or the deceased is white, their intention is not presumed by the press and amplified in order to outrage a mob, such as in the case of Chauvin, where it was, whereas in the case of Noor it was not.

Noor intentionally killed someone he had not even identified, but incorrectly thought was a threat. It's a very different scenario from Chauvin.

If I'm not mistaken, Chauvin was convicted of having intent, so that's the decision. I think this is the distinction in MN between murder 2 and murder 3, but I could be wrong; anyway, Chauvin was convicted of both. Personally, I just can't see why Chauvin would intentionally have done it, as opposed to negligently. Am I just too naïve? Chauvin had been on the force like 18 years and knew he had cameras on him, so why?

I do know of one case in Florida 2016 where a cop killed a woman during a public relations drill the PD was doing with the public in front of their HQ. It was the old, "Gee these were supposed to be blanks," excuse. I think it's likely that cop is a psycho and intentionally murdered a woman while being photographed, so I think intentional murders by police are possible and I could list many others from just the past 10 years. Chauvin doesn't fit; I could be wrong.

I asked earlier. Who did you expect to protest the Damand killing? Well, the Somalia-American community did.

Did they protest the killing of Damand or the firing and prosecution of Noor?

I think you're making my point for me. There is a presumption of racial bias in these cases of white cop & non-white victim that always makes the non-white the victim regardless of the facts of the particular case, or the overall statistical trends. And you're also now showing how there were racial tensions in the Noor case when before you said there weren't. Noor's action was beyond outrageous and resulted in the death of the innocent person who called the police. It's a disgrace that Somalis protested and claimed his prosecution was racially motivated.

So, are you saying that, in his case, "justice" was not served?

Because justice is not an abstract concept that can be conveniently re-defined ad hoc, it's very easy for me to say justice was served by the courts in the Noor case.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:

marvin8 wrote:

Candace
Apr 22, 2021

The media is LYING to you about George Floyd and Ma'Khia Bryant. Beyond just distorting the facts—which is already egregious enough—the media is actively using their influence to advance mob justice. Here's the truth: Derek Chauvin did not receive a fair trial, and the police shooting of Ma’Khia Bryant was justified.

The woke mob may have already made up its mind, but here are the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3YJ24roIzk

I don't think I can imagine a more surefire way to undermine your credibility on social issues than by posting a video clip of Candice Owens to make your case.

How does posting the Owens (?) clip "undermine my credibility?" I did not make a case. Owens gave facts that some may not be aware of or want to consider is why I posted it.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:

There is a degree of mob justice, Cancel culture, race baiting, politicking, business, etc.

Good job, these are most of the hot button issues from OAN, Newsmax, and Fox. But, what do they have to do with anything?

They exist and narratives are given for various reasons that can influence others' opinions. I'm not familiar with OAN or Newsmax nor do I watch Fox much.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Was the orderly trial of Chauvin mob justice? No. He was condemned by many of his fellow LEOs and then found guilty by a jury of his peers.

I don't have a problem with the jury's decision. I don't know if mob justice had anything to do with their decision. However, defense's request to relocate the trial was denied and the jury was not sequestered at the beginning.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Race baiting? Was race part of the charges in the trial? Nope.

No. But, Crump, Sharpton, etc. are race baiters at times.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Politiking? And then you post a video of the grifter CO. lol.

Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters were politicking. What facts are you disputing with the grifter (?)?

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Business? See the above.

Crump, Sharpton, NAACP, BLM, etc. may profit from race baiting whether a case justifies it or not (e.g., Ma'Khia Bryant).

Steve James wrote:

Cancel Culture? I see much more of that coming from the Right these days. No surprise there. What does it have to do with the trial? Nothing.

Maybe he means that Chauvin is a victim of cancel culture, which leads to the question of what culture does a murderer represent? I guess he's a hero figure like Rittenhouse, the Kenosha killer with the police supporters. If he had gotten the "fair trial" that CO suggests, and he had been exonerated, would that ben the opposite of cancel culture?

I mean some hosts, etc. on shows may take certain positions in order to keep their jobs. Inherently, some shows may need to provide a balanced viewpoint. For example, Joy Behar and Sunny Hostin on The View:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUYP21LRthY

If I'm not mistaken, Chauvin was convicted of having intent

You're wrong: Google.

Did they protest the killing of Damand or the firing and prosecution of Noor?

Shucks. Didn't you see the picture?

Because justice is not an abstract concept that can be conveniently re-defined ad hoc, it's very easy for me to say justice was served by the courts in the Noor case.

The definition of "justice" is a subject that philsophers have debated, well, since there was western philsophy. I brought up the Merchant of Venice, but could have brought up Solomon's baby, or Plato, let alone a slew of modern philosophers. There are different types of justice: distributive, procedural, retributive, and restorative (though restorative and distributive are often seen as similar.

Procedural justice is what the criminal courts, in particular, determine. If the defendant's trial was fair, that type of justice was satisfied. Clearly, there can be no restorative justice in this case. You can't bring Floyd back, but it would be justice if one could. And, then there is retributive justice; i.e., punishment or retribution.

We can jail him, but for how long? Is "justice" a year or 10 or 20. What would be the specific, non-abstract ad hoc sentence? How about life? Should he get the minimum or the maximum? Determining that is when justice may not be so easy to determine --and, it's not unusual that not everyone will be satisfied.

Anyway, afa Noor making your point. If it's that there's a different narrative when a Black cop shoots an unarmed White woman than when a White cop shoots and unarmed Black man, that's definitely true. But, it doesn't matter to me. The narrative is not the problem, certainly not mine. No Black male in this society feels any safer because "justice" was done in the Floyd case. Hard as it may be to believe, the purpose of the courts is to assure the society that everyone will be treated equally under the law.

It may be the media, but it's easy to Google something like "Cop shoots man holding cellphone" and come up with more than one hit. I don't need to know the colors of the parties to think there's something wrong with that. Defining what justice would be in those cases is hard; but, in the ones I know of, the officers weren't charged. But, I don't want them charged. I don't want it to happen at all.

Hey, if someone murdered my child, killing his would feel like justice to me. You think that's harsh? Read some Shakespeare. Then again, that's another reason I don't believe in the death penalty. If you had a son who was by himself playing with a toy gun when a police officer drove up and shot him dead, what would be justice for you? Would it seem like justice if the officers weren't even charged? I'd be upset.

I wanted to know what you meant by cancel culture.

Maybe he means that Chauvin is a victim of cancel culture, which leads to the question of what culture does a murderer represent? I guess he's a hero figure like Rittenhouse, the Kenosha killer with the police supporters. If he had gotten the "fair trial" that CO suggests, and he had been exonerated, would that ben the opposite of cancel culture?

I mean some hosts, etc. on shows may take certain positions in order to keep their jobs. Inherently, some shows may need to provide a balanced viewpoint. For example, Joy Behar and Sunny Hostin on The View:

What does that have to do with cancel culture question? What "culture" is being cancelled? Does Chauvin represent the culture? Is racism a culture? Is that what people want to cancel? I think many people think that in this culture, a cop can shoot an unarmed person and not be accountable. (Hmm, is preventing people from speaking trheir first language cancel culture, or is allwoing them to speak it cancel culture)?

Anyway, about protests for shootings. Here's one that's a bit "different." It didn't get national attention. However, I'd argue that the officers shouldn't and won't face any charges.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7le0jx5XgY

Race baiting only works for fish who believe in race. I agree that there are people who turn it into a living. Just don't be a fish, and you'll have no problem.

Did they protest the killing of Damand or the firing and prosecution of Noor?

Shucks. Didn't you see the picture?

Slow down cowboy. That was just a nice way of saying I told you so.

Steve James wrote:I wanted to know what you meant by cancel culture.

"Cancel culture" is not my term. Gina Carano and Sharon Osbourne (The Talk) were fired from their jobs, because of what they said and are victims of "woke justice." If you're not familiar, I can give more details on Sharon Osbourne.

Steve James wrote:

Maybe he means that Chauvin is a victim of cancel culture, which leads to the question of what culture does a murderer represent? I guess he's a hero figure like Rittenhouse, the Kenosha killer with the police supporters. If he had gotten the "fair trial" that CO suggests, and he had been exonerated, would that ben the opposite of cancel culture?

I mean some hosts, etc. on shows may take certain positions in order to keep their jobs. Inherently, some shows may need to provide a balanced viewpoint. For example, Joy Behar and Sunny Hostin on The View:

What does that have to do with cancel culture question? What "culture" is being cancelled? Does Chauvin represent the culture? Is racism a culture? Is that what people want to cancel? I think many people think that in this culture, a cop can shoot an unarmed person and not be accountable. (Hmm, is preventing people from speaking trheir first language cancel culture, or is allwoing them to speak it cancel culture)?

People or hosts that say Floyd is not a victim of police brutality and systemic racism (e.g., Candace Owens video) can be fired from their jobs, becoming a victim of the "cancel culture" accused of not being sensitive. So, it can be a form of censorship or blackmail. Give our narrative or you will be fired. This can lead to a widespread false narrative and mob mentality.

marvin8 wrote:

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:

marvin8 wrote:There is a degree of mob justice, Cancel culture, race baiting, politicking, business, etc.

Good job, these are most of the hot button issues from OAN, Newsmax, and Fox. But, what do they have to do with anything?

They exist and narratives are given for various reasons that can influence others' opinions. I'm not familiar with OAN or Newsmax nor do I watch Fox much.

To clarify what I already posted, the environment may have lead to an unfair trial for Chauvin creating grounds for a possible appeal.

Excerpt from "Here's how Derek Chauvin could try to get verdict overturned on appeal:"

Marlene Lenthang on April 21, 2021 wrote:Chauvin could seek to challenge the verdict based on a number of grounds, including arguing the jury was prejudiced by intense media coverage of the case and the $27 million settlement won by George Floyd’s family to settle a civil lawsuit filed over his death. That settlement was reached during jury selection.

After the settlement was announced, Chauvin’s defense attorney Eric Nelson requested a delay in the trial or a change of venue, arguing the settlement had an “incredible propensity to taint a jury pool." Cahill denied that request on March 19.

Cahill’s ruling to not move the trial or delay proceedings could be challenged as part of the appeal. The decision to sequester the jury for only deliberations could also be an appellate issue.

"Most of the arguments are going to center around the publicity, because being downtown Minneapolis, it was like the Green Zone in Iraq where the U.S. military was living. I've never seen anything like that -- Rodney King wasn't like that, O.J. Simpson wasn't like that," Applebaum told ABC News.

"First you have the pretrial publicity, which was horrific if you're the defendant. For almost one year, it's just been a daily barrage of negative emotions and feelings towards the defendant. Then you'd have the $27 million settlement on the eve of the trial, which is horrific for the defendant in terms of the City of Minneapolis, his employer, giving $27 million payout for his conduct," he added.

Another strategy in the appeal could be pointing out the uproar over the fatal police shooting of Daunte Wright on April 11 in the Minneapolis suburb, which reignited protests in the state.

Chauvin's attorney could also cite comments from California Rep. Maxine Waters, who urged protesters over the weekend to “get more confrontational” if Chauvin was found not guilty -- a comment Nelson used to request a mistrial. Cahill denied that motion but admitted the comments were controversial.

“I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result on this whole trial being overturned,” Cahill said.

"All of these things most certainly have spilled over into the trial," Applebaum said.

Afa Chauvin's appeal, it could only lead to a second trial. The evidence wouldn't change. It wouldn't lead to an acquittal.

But, I still don't have any idea of the culture being canceled. I hear what you say about what might happen because of it. Sure, Candace might be fired from CNN. But I say cancel culture is when a team uses the term Redskins, not when it's removed for being offensive. Change it to Rednecks or Honkies.

Indian children are often prohibited from wearing eagle feather or traditional dress at graduations and special events. It reminds me of people who are told not to wear a veil. How about hair styles. I already mentioned language. In fact, this society is renowned for canceling. Religion stands out.

But yeah, people want to cancel racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, police brutality. Those are cultural features everyone understands. I also see that when a company says it is anti-racist, people want to cancel it. Take Coca-Cola for instance. Kaepernick was canceled. So, canceling Nazis is fine with me.

Steve James wrote:Afa Chauvin's appeal, it could only lead to a second trial. The evidence wouldn't change. It wouldn't lead to an acquittal.

But, I still don't have any idea of the culture being canceled. I hear what you say about what might happen because of it. Sure, Candace might be fired from CNN. But I say cancel culture is when a team uses the term Redskins, not when it's removed for being offensive. Change it to Rednecks or Honkies.

It's not the culture being cancelled. It's people being cancelled by a cancel culture mob.

Cancel Culture is when a mob gets Candace cancelled from her show for speaking facts let alone opinions, saying the policeman who shot Ma'Khia Bryant is not a racist. This can scare others from speaking out. Cancel culture is a threat to free speech.

Cancel culture could have prevented Chauvin from getting a fair trial. There were potential jurors who flat out said there was no way they could be fair for fear of retaliation. You know even those who did not say it out loud are concerned what will happen if there is a not guilty verdict. And we all know it’s true, the streets will burn, it’s just a matter of how bad and which streets. When jurors are identified and know their safety, career and family are likely to be impacted, the chances of a fair trial are limited.

Cancel Culture is when a mob gets Candace cancelled from her show for speaking facts let alone opinions, saying the policeman who shot Ma'Khia Bryant is not a racist. This can scare others from speaking out. Cancel culture is a threat to free speech.

A mob got Candace cancelled? You mean his employers fired her? She got fired for saying that the policeman who shot Bryant wasn't racist? That's not true --though it still doesn't address anything about "culture." It seems like it's just a dog whistle term. Anyway, afa Owens, most recently, she was asked to step down because of some anti-Semitic comments.

Members of the conservative advocacy group (which really means they cloak their racism with so-called patriotism) — Turning Point USA — were calling for Owens to step down as director of communications because of her recent anti-Semitic comments.

They weren't a mob. And, fwiw, "free speech" only means that the government can't control your speech. A company can hire or fire an employee because that person is bad for business. It's no different from RSF. You or I can be banned for what we say. That's not cancel culture.

Afa cancel culture affecting Chauvin's fair trial, the problem is that there was a video that people all over the world watched. There were demonstrations globally last year because people were outraged at what they saw. So, yeah, after watching, people wanted a conviction. Yes, they would have been as angry about an acquittal as some would be made about an election.

It's ass backwards to argue that he shouldn't have been convicted because of the possible crowd reaction. Repeating "cancel culture" over and over is useless. LIke I said at the beginning, I won't argue with you whether he was guilty or not. The medical examiner, the chief of police, fellow officers, all said it wasn't proper practice.

Steve James wrote:

Steve James wrote:But, I still don't have any idea of the culture being canceled. I hear what you say about what might happen because of it. Sure, Candace might be fired from CNN.

marvin8 wrote:Cancel Culture is when a mob gets Candace cancelled from her show for speaking facts let alone opinions, saying the policeman who shot Ma'Khia Bryant is not a racist. This can scare others from speaking out. Cancel culture is a threat to free speech.

A mob got Candace cancelled? You mean his employers fired her? She got fired for saying that the policeman who shot Bryant wasn't racist?

Yes, in our example.

Steve James wrote:And, fwiw, "free speech" only means that the government can't control your speech. A company can hire or fire an employee because that person is bad for business.

No, free speech also means people can be censored through the actions of a cancel culture mob:

marvin8 wrote:"Cancel culture" is not my term. Gina Carano and Sharon Osbourne (The Talk) were fired from their jobs, because of what they said and are victims of "woke justice."

Steve James wrote:Afa cancel culture affecting Chauvin's fair trial, the problem is that there was a video that people all over the world watched. There were demonstrations globally last year because people were outraged at what they saw. So, yeah, after watching, people wanted a conviction. Yes, they would have been as angry about an acquittal as some would be made about an election.

In addition to the video, cancel culture and other factors (already posted) may have prevented Chauvin from getting a fair trial and lead to an appeal.

Steve James wrote:It's ass backwards to argue that he shouldn't have been convicted because of the possible crowd reaction. Repeating "cancel culture" over and over is useless.

It's important to understand the possible problems of "cancel culture"—how it can effect trial verdicts and society.

Steve James wrote:LIke I said at the beginning, I won't argue with you whether he was guilty or not.

marvin8 wrote:Not saying justice was not served in the Chauvin case. ... I don't have a problem with the jury's decision.

Yes, in our example.

Could you post the link to where she was fired because she said the Bryant shooter was racist? Anyway, she was just on Tucker Carlson, and has her own YouTube channel.

No, free speech also means people can be censored through the actions of a cancel culture mob:

Oh you mean your definition of free speech too. Well, the Constitution says different. Just say the mob shut her up (though they didn't). Like I said, it's like RSF. The government doesn't have any control over what you say here, but you can get banned for saying some things.

Afa Carano, she worked for Disney, and she said what they considered unacceptable. She was warned. She said she wouldn't be silenced, so she was fired. Carano then got a job with Ben Shapiro. She hasn't shut up. Now, if the President said, "She should be fired" --like he said for Kaepernick and any other player who kneeled-- that would be closer to an infringement on free speech. If there were a law that Carano couldn't say something, that would be different.

And, afa the trial, "cancel culture" won't be the basis. Again, there would be another trial, at best, if there's an appeal. He'd still be guilty.

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Steve James wrote:

Yes, in our example.

Could you post the link to where she was fired because she said the Bryant shooter was racist? Anyway, she was just on Tucker Carlson, and has her own YouTube channel.

Yes. Here is the link and the "what might happen" example:

Steve James wrote:But, I still don't have any idea of the culture being canceled. I hear what you say about what might happen because of it. Sure, Candace might be fired from CNN.

Steve James wrote:

marvin8 wrote:No, free speech also means people can be censored through the actions of a cancel culture mob:

Oh you mean your definition of free speech too. Well, the Constitution says different. Just say the mob shut her up (though they didn't). Like I said, it's like RSF. The government doesn't have any control over what you say here, but you can get banned for saying some things.

Yes, the cancel culture mob and RSF can censor one's speech by getting one fired or banning them.

Steve James wrote:Afa Carano, she worked for Disney, and she said what they considered unacceptable. She was warned. She said she wouldn't be silenced, so she was fired. Carano then got a job with Ben Shapiro. She hasn't shut up. Now, if the President said, "She should be fired" --like he said for Kaepernick and any other player who kneeled-- that would be closer to an infringement on free speech. If there were a law that Carano couldn't say something, that would be different.

Yes, Gina is an example of cancel culture and it's effects.

Steve James wrote:And, afa the trial, "cancel culture" won't be the basis. Again, there would be another trial, at best, if there's an appeal.

Again, cancel culture may be a factor in getting Chauvin's verdict overturned on appeal.

You didn''t provide a link to anything about Owens. It led to another post. I thought you were talking about something that happened.

Actually, all you are doing is repeating yourself. "Cancel culture" won't/can't lead to a new trial. His defense might claim "jury intimidation" or "undue influence." However, as I said, that would lead to a new trial. "Cancel culture" won't disappear if he's tried again. There's no way to say that the jurors are afraid of it.

And, you can't say justice was served but he didn't receive a fair trial. Even if your argument is totally true, though, do you think a jury would/should reach a different verdict?

Anyway, I think I said that one resultof the verdict will be that cops will be more careful. For example, look what happened here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOKhqabg-Ys