magicalkittycat
No bio...
User ID: 3762
magicalkittycat
25d ago
And I know all that because I followed the case and came to my own decision instead of just posting the first authoritative-looking thing I found on google to score a deflection point in an argument.
If you disagree then you disagree, but the state attorney, jury and appeals court all said otherwise that under Florida law he was guilty. Those are not "authoritative looking things", they are the authority. He is as a matter of fact undeniably been legally found as guilty.
The US is a free nation with strong legal rights for the accused, we aren't China or Russia. Our legal system is so generally reliable that many (including many users here!) even feel safe relying on the heuristic that just an indictment is enough to assume guilt in a casual conversation. Something I disagree with, I think conviction is the stage that happens but it is a sign that our legal system is reliable.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
I haven't answered lots of replies, there's way too many! Just doing a quick check there has been >40 replies to me in 9 hours. I have a busy life with work and my kids and this is just something I'm going to check and reply to casually if there's too many going on.
But sure I'll answer yours
Quick sanity check: what is a "particularly culture war" situation. Was George Floyd one?
I don't think it's much of a culture war situation because basically no one has been on the side of "police should just make up their mind based off the first person they talk to and police should ignore a stabbing victim's pleas by assuming they're just a druggie or hallucinating or whatever the police assumed there". I haven't seen anyone argue that it is good for police to do that.
For a culture war, certainly there must be a war element to it. Some sort of disagreement on if this behavior was responsible policing or something. But nope doesn't seem to be much, pretty much everyone left and right wing I know seems to agree, police should actually check instead of just assuming it's nonsense.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Did the Republican Florida state attorney also not have a thought? The Florida jury members? The Florida appeals court?
Seems more likely you're upset they disagreed with you.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Here is a video recording of the McGlockton shooting. It clearly shows that McGlockton is the aggressor. If you disagree, I would be quite interested in hearing your argument as to why.
Sure it's really easy! He was investigated and charged by a Republican state attorney in Florida and a jury of his peers in Florida found him guilty after looking at all the evidence, the specifics of the legal statutes he was charged under, and his best arguments in defense.
Then upon appealing
In December 2021, a three-judge panel of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and the sentencing
So there you go, he's guilty.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
What part of their behavior and words indicates they saw the wounds and purposely chose to ignore them?
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Domestic violence is just a term for volence that comes from someone's family/significant others. If near fire hydrant crime was something noteworthy they'd invent a term for it too. But it's not so there is no term.
Here's the important bits
Drejka, a 47-year-old man, was not initially charged for the killing by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, with Sheriff Bob Gualtieri citing Florida's stand-your-ground law as the reason. The investigation was then handed over to the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida State Attorney Bernie McCabe, who charged Drejka with one count of manslaughter on August 13, 2018. Drejka pleaded not guilty to the charge. His trial began on August 19, 2019. Drejka was convicted of manslaughter on August 23, 2019, and was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years on October 10, 2019.
There you go. A jury in Florida reviewing the evidence and applicable laws found a white man guilty of manslaughter of a black man after he was initially not arrested by police.
This is what you asked for, this is what you were provided. Complain all you want that you don't like the specific laws or whatever, but those are the laws Florida had.
Oh yeah and also Republican state attorney too so the investigation was handled and charged by a Republican and found guilty in a Republican state under Republican law cause I can predict your next nitpick might be "well what if it's politically biased!!" cause you do not want to accept that I have shown you several different answers to your increasingly goalpost shifting ask.
"Some Jan 6 Electoral Justice Protestors tussled with cops
"Tussled with cops" is a brilliant way to try to lighten it. The people who attacked cops are cop beaters. Whether it's described as "tussling" or not, that behavior is wrong.
= we can round all Jan 6 protestors off to 'cop beaters'"
But that's not what happened! The problem isn't with the general jan 6th protestor, but the ones who committed a crime. Considering that Republican senators also seemed to interpret the fund as including the specific criminals who did crime, it at the very least was unclear even if it wasn't the intention.
What do you base this on? Taking politicians' sound bites at face value? Do you also believe congressmen when they say that the American Freedom Panopticon Surveillance Bill is meant to "keep our children safe?
Sure senators like Cruz or Tillis or Fitzpatrick could be lying about their objections here. But why? What do you suppose the real objections is then? That's a whole lot of Republicans who were apparently mad about it so it wouldn't make sense to just be "Tillis and Cruz hate all Jan 6thers in a way others don't" (Unless that was made up too I suppose).
Anyway, I'm still curious to know what sort of discussion you hoped to start with your OP.
It's already started a good discussion. What do you think the real reason is for Republican senator backlash then if it's not about crime or the appearance of corruption? Or if it wasn't from internal backlash, why do you think it was dropped?
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Sure I'll go check a chatbot for another example than the one I gave and doublecheck to make sure it's not hallucinating.
It gave me (with edits to cut out fat).
Florida — Markeis McGlockton shooting (2018, USA)
Legal outcome:
Drejka was initially not arrested at the scene. Later charged and convicted of manslaughter after public pressure.
Why it fits your request partially: It’s a self-defense claim used by a white aggressor against a Black victim, showing how police initially accepted the shooter’s framing of events.
Double check and yep it seems to be real.
So, you can't cite an example of the thing I requested? You mean (contrary to what you earlier claimed) this case is unique?
The specifics of "random guy attacks another random guy" is pretty rare in general yeah, including across racial boundaries. Most violence is done by people who knew each other beforehand.
The phenomenon of "cops assume calm person who spoke to them first is innocent" is not so rare. That's extremely common and happens across the board. Mostly to "they knew each other beforehand cases" but that's because those are the large large majority of violent crime!
If you want specifically race, sure https://atlantablackstar.com/2023/01/28/colorado-police-arrest-black-woman-after-74-year-old-white-man-objected-to-how-she-parked-at-store-and-scuffled-with-her/
That too of course is rare though, because most violence is done by people who knew each other beforehand. And therefore cases of police arresting the wrong victim in stranger on stranger violence in any racial direction are inherently rare, while the overall phenomenon of police making mistakes is not.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
You present a completely unrelated category of domestic abuse as if it proves your position.
One of the most common categories of violent crime seems pretty relevant to violent crime discussions. Feel free to disagree, but clearly we're talking past each other at that point.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
And "cop beaters" sound an awful lot like Chinese Robbers.
I don't think you understand how Chinese robbers fallacy works.
The fallacy is "some Chinese people are robbers = Chinese are robbers". Not "most Chinese people haven't done robbery = this specific chinese person who just robbed a store should be let off".
The average Jan 6th attendee did not commit any crimes, including violence against the police. The specific ones who did, the ones charged and convicted of crimes, did do crimes.
"Good to see at least some republicans aren't total CUCKS who want to steal TAXPAYER MONEY and give it to COP BEATERS" is a Twitter tier opinion. I guess you will get a bunch of >(you)s but that sort of violates the spirit of this place. Why not post some substantive analysis about why you think these Republicans still aren't fully sold on MAGA?
I did! The Republican senators stood up to this because they don't want to award money specifically to cop beaters (amid other criminals) who would have the "victimization claim" available to them and they don't feel like they can defend what appears to be blatant corruption. You think it's a Twitter tier opinion, I think you gave a Twitter tier response of not reading.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
No: I asked you for a specific example of the reverse, wherein a brown victim is handcuffed while the white aggressor is left alone.
It barely happens in any racial direction!
Almost every bit of violence is done by people who knew each other beforehand. Therefore, almost every case where this stupid assumption gets made is done in cases where people knew each other beforehand.
But also nice changing your words
I don't know why you brought up domestic abuse calls, as that doesn't seem remotely relevant to my request
As you said
If you can show me that, or even something vaguely analogous, I will consider the possibility that there are no real CW aspects to this awful case.
You don't think that one of the most common forms of violence regularly having this exact issue is even "vaguely analogous"? I would say it's not even vaguely! It's one of the most common forms of violence!
That has literally nothing to do with this case. I don't know why you're bringing it up. It's completely irrelevant. We're not talking about police arresting both parties out of an excess of caution. We're talking about the police arresting one person, and it being the wrong one.
Yes, cops do that pretty often. Which is why the smarter departments and officers take a dual arrest approach, cause they don't want to make that common mistake. There are still plenty of stupid or lazy or uncaring cops who just assume calm = good.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Meanwhile, in my actual comment -- not the more convenient one you're invented to respond to -- I was asking about where this has happened with the ethnicities flipped.
There's barely any of those, in the same way there's barely any of white victims with colored aggressors being left free. In reality the ordinary large majority of cases of police believing an aggressor over the victim are same race friends/family who knew each other beforehand and the aggressor calmly lies while the victim responds "inappropriately" and stupid cops assume calm = innocent while not obeying orders/being emotional/whatever = guilty.
It is a real documented and known issue, but most violence works that way. It's almost always people you already know. And therefore almost every case of cops making stupid assumptions is in situations of violence between people who knew each other.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Are there really so many domestic abuse cases in which the aggressor is a white man and the victim a brown man? I had no idea there were so many interracial gay couples.
Are you trying to claim there's a widespread epidemic of white victims being left lying on the ground while colored attackers are left alone? That's not true at all, a case like this is extremely rare. The only reason it's generating so much discussion, just like the Floyd case, is because such extremes are very rare.
The ordinary large majority of cases of police believing an aggressor over the victim are same race friends/family who knew each other beforehand and the aggressor calmly lies while the victim responds "inappropriately" and stupid cops assume calm = innocent while not obeying orders/being emotional/whatever = guilty.
Which, you'll notice, is not what happened here.
Of course not! This sort of issue being rather common is exactly why some more experienced and smarter officers and departments do dual arrests. Lots of cops are stupid or uncaring and don't do that. It happens often, and is a well documented recurring issue.
The so-called "Anti weaponization fund" has been defeated due to public and internal backlash.
It was so unpopular that even Republican senators were furious and yelling at Blanche over it. According to Ted Cruz
My guess is there're probably 45 senators in the room, at least half of them were blasting the attorney general, and they were pissed."
But why did it die?
Republicans are willing to bow their heads to Trump on most things, but the same way defund the police was unpopular (because people like the police), senators really like the capitol police and don't approve of rewarding the cop beaters with money. Trump got away with the pardons, but actively awarding attacking the cops who protect them is a step too far from many.
It was also just really unpopular among voters. Just like the senators, voters don't approve of giving money to cop beaters. Not even many republican ones are supportive of that just because they did it in Trump's name. Of course it's also quite likely that many interpreted the question as a fund for victims of Trump's weaponization, such as James Comey whose lead prosecutor just stepped down or Jerome Powell but not all probably did.
As my own senator put it
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., called the fund a “payout pot for punks,”
Senators also felt that the deal was too blatantly corrupt and hard for them to defend with a straight face.
Cruz said several of his GOP colleagues felt that they could not politically defend the fund because it appeared as though President Donald Trump “cut a deal with himself.”
Either way, they've dropped it now and the fund is dead in the water. Interesting showcase of how many republican congressman haven't completely neutered themselves for the executive yet, they just mostly argue behind closed doors.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
As I said in another comment, I already did! In the original comment I gave a whole category of crimes where it's common.
It's common enough to make this mistake that some more experienced officers and departments have adopted the practice of arresting both in response and sorting things out after.
When police have trouble determining the identity of the primary aggressor, they may also arrest the true abuser along with the victim, in a dual arrest.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
They should have known he was dying. They should certainly have managed to notice his injuries while they were handcuffing him for doing a racism.
I agree! Cops can suck and be poorly trained and we should ensure that they take each situation seriously instead of defaulting to "'calm person I spoke to first is being truthful and unresponsive person is just on drugs".
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Show me an example of a white Briton (or hell, let's make it easier for you: a white person from anywhere) stabbing a brown man, the police arriving on the scene to find the white aggressor clearly uninjured and the brown man visibly incapacitated, the white man claiming to have been attacked first, and on his word alone, the police handcuffing the visibly incapacitated brown man. If you can show me that, or even something vaguely analogous, I will consider the possibility that there are no real CW aspects to this awful case.
In my original comment I gave a whole category of this, domestic abuse victims.
It's common enough to make this mistake that some more experienced officers and departments have adopted the practice of arresting both in response.
When police have trouble determining the identity of the primary aggressor, they may also arrest the true abuser along with the victim, in a dual arrest.
magicalkittycat
26d ago
Nothing the cops said suggests they saw the wounds and then decided to ignore it, as opposed to them just not seeing the wounds to begin with.
Maybe they didn't see it because it wasn't visible, or maybe they were all incompetents with 20/200 vision. I don't know why they didn't see it, but it seems like they just didn't.
magicalkittycat
26d ago
I never said the police behaved appropriately. In fact the last paragraph should suggest I believe otherwise and this is a failure in both police behavior and in training. They should not just be assuming everyone having a crisis is just a druggie or a schizo.
magicalkittycat
26d ago
How could a man with four stab wounds, one of which is 8cm deep, not have any visible injuries? What's the source for this claim?
It's obvious the injuries were not very visible to the officers just by looking at their behavior! They don't see any wounds when first addressing him and they don't believe him when he says he was stabbed, being actively dismissive towards it at first.
magicalkittycat
26d ago
over the white guy who's dying on the ground is basically what people are upset about.
To be clear here, they didn't know he was dying. The wound was not visible from their perspective.
I don't know if they ever said it anywhere but most likely they just assumed that he was pretty much every other case of a guy freaking out, an addict having an issue.
Its a sad situation but nothing here seems unique or even too particularly culture war. Police have a bad tendency to trust the first calm person to talk to them, which is Digwa claiming that he got attacked first. They especially trust the calm person over the one who is clearly panicking or having some sort of unidentified issue. This is a problem that gets brought up in domestic abuse circles sometimes, that the abuser seems cool and collected when the cops get called in by a neighbor while the victim will often be emotionally frazzled and angry and look like they're a hostile aggressor.
So given this, the police approach the scene and find a calm guy who says he got attacked and another guy who is panicking and freaking out and is like almost every other situation you see a guy freaking out in, probably on drugs. Violence cases are rare, drug guy being crazy or having an overdose is common. They make the assumption this is like every other case. His wounds were in such a way that they weren't easily visible so even when he's saying he got stabbed, they assume it's the insane mutterings of a druggie high off whatever.
The solution is to check anyway but that doesn't necessarily help unless you constantly reinforce it, since the officers will eventually default back to ignoring it again. Heck one of the cops even acknowledged it, like "oh well I think we have to check anyway don't we?". They knew better but they were used to just ignoring it. They really didn't believe he was stabbed and defaulted to their base assumptions and base behaviors
Yes, two knives. Digwa was carrying two ceremonial knives that are permitted to him as a religious article, one of them being a kirpan, an 8 inch one, on a sheath over his waistband.
Now this is something I think is always ridiculous. Religious exemptions are a nonsense idea.
Either a rule is genuinely important to have and exceptions shouldn't be given out (because it's important!), or the rule isn't actually important and therefore shouldn't exist. Almost everything that has a religious exemption to it should just be gone! Why should you lose more freedoms than someone else just because you believe in a different sky man?
George Floyd? It should be obvious he is because people were actually arguing about it. There was a war element to his death.
Some people said police shouldn't kneel on a man's neck for 9 minutes as the man pleads that he is struggling to breath, and others think it is an acceptable restraining method.
There is an actual disagreement over police behavior.
More options
Context Copy link