Should this "Karen" be locked up for falsely accusing an innocent Black?

[TomC]

Nope. Being drug free wouldn't save a person from being chocked by 8 minutes and 26 seconds. The body needs air to survive.

But then again,
if Floyd hadn't tried pass a fake $20.
and if Floyd hadn't demanded to be let out of the police car
and hadn't remained belligerent after getting out of the car
and Chauvin didn't know him as the burly bar bouncer Chauvin used to work with

Maybe Floyd could have gone on living a life of crime and drugs. But the life expectancy wouldn't have been very good.
Tom

You see a homeless guy dying in the street from pneumonia and you bash his head in with a rock, are you any less a murderer?

In what universe is that relevant?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

You see a homeless guy dying in the street from pneumonia and you bash his head in with a rock, are you any less a murderer?

In what universe is that relevant?
Tom

The same one as your "what ifs" .

 

[Derec]

Typically, rape victims actually witness the crime first hand,

If there is a rape to begin with. Calling an accuser "rape victim" prejudges the case because it assumes she is telling the truth.

but an element of he said; she said often gets thrown into the mix, even when there is physical evidence.

Of course it is "he said, she said" as usually it is one person's word against the other. As far as physical evidence, it really depends on what it is evidence of. If both parties agree that there was sex but disagree on consent, then physical evidence of sex is immaterial.

There have long been concerns of underreporting for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) not being believed, being summarily discredited, victim blaming, or being denigrated. I assume the hashtag is #BelieveWomen due to statistical data indicating women are disproportionately affected and due to #MeToo being largely driven by women.

The claims of underreporting are just guesses, and in any case any underreporting does not justify believing the accuser automatically without evidence. There is still presumption of innocence.

Reporting theft doesn't tend to face the same issues, or is at least not perceived to face them.

So evidence should be required for theft but not rape?

#BelieveWomen was a response to how people* reporting rape were mishandled and mistreated and what impact that had.

Which is bullshit. When Crystal Mangum falsely accused those lacrosse players she got a great deal of support and sympathy while her victims were dragged through the mud in the media and even suspended by their own school.
When Jackie Coakley make false accusations of having been raped she was likewise supported. Many continued supporting her even after her claims were shown to be completely made up.

Blasey-Ford was also supported despite her not coming forward for 30 years and not being able to remember when or where the alleged rape allegedly happened. Same with that crazy woman who claimed Trump raped her in the changing room at Barney's.

The issue wasn't limited to getting criminal convictions, but even just to being generally heard, believed and supported.

Bullshit. First of all, the goal should not be to get more criminal convictions. Nobody should be convicted of a crime unless the guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second, rape accusers are heard, supported and believed (often without evidence or contrary to available evidence) plenty.

There was a heavy stigma to saying you were raped. Some took that hashtag to an extreme state of guilty until proven innocent. Others did not. I am not aware of a foremost definitive explanation of what it is supposed to mean in effect. I am just talking about what prompted the hashtag and why it exists in connection with rape/ sexual assault, specifically.

It is feminist nonsense. If you say "believe women" you claim in effect that women are trustworthy just for being women. It is sexist at its core.

*I am saying 'people' in recognition of men/ boys and enbies who have faced the same issues. I didn't follow closely enough to know how inclusively most people interpreted the hashtag. I have fuckall interest in debating it one way or the other (nor, on the off chance he's reading along, having metaphor explain it with his particular brand of wtf).

The hashtag is very gender-exclusive.

 

[Derec]

Nope. Being drug free wouldn't save a person from being chocked by 8 minutes and 26 seconds. The body needs air to survive.

It's not like Floyd was strangled. Chauvin merely kept his knee on Floyd's back. Had Floyd's lungs not been full of liquid because of his overdose, he'd have been fine.

 

[Derec]

It was not uncommon on the tv show COPS that women were arrested for domestic violence.

It's not uncommon in real life either.

More uncommon to actually get convictions. Female privilege extends to prosecutors and judges.

 

[Derec]

Since I have repeatedly written (frequently in response to your blather), that it is about believing but verify, you ought to know the answer to your question - I don't.

What you have repeatedly written is nonsensical. If you a-priori believe the female accuser, you are disbelieving the accused. "Believe women" means to prejudge the case no matter how much you want to weasel out of the logical implications of the hashtag.

One could belief that woman's story and one could have easily verified its veracity without engaging in violence or hysterics.

If you already believe her story there is confirmation bias at hand - see Nifong, Mike.
Same if you already disbelieve her. Both will affect how investigators and prosecutors view evidence meant to verify the claims.
The only fair position is one of neutrality, not a-priori belief in favor of either side.

Nope. One's life can easily be ruined any false accusation of any crime.

Being falsely accused of any crime is bad, yes, but there is a world of difference between being accused of petty theft and a major felony.
Being expelled for rape also ruins one's life, and yet you are on the record of not supporting any due process rights for college students falsely accused of rape.

There are plenty of instances of half-assed verification attempts of rape allegations. Belief implies one takes the accusation seriously and puts in the commiserate effort. I realize that upsets rape apologists, but that is what it means.

Belief means you are prejudging the case. And calling everybody who disagrees with you "rape apologists" is really low.

 

[laughing dog]

What you have repeatedly written is nonsensical.

Nope.

If you a-priori believe the female accuser, you are disbelieving the accused. "Believe women" means to prejudge the case no matter how much you want to weasel out of the logical implications of the hashtag.

Only to rape apologists.

Being falsely accused of any crime is bad, yes, but there is a world of difference between being accused of petty theft and a major felony.

Depends on the area.

Being expelled for rape also ruins one's life

Do you have any actual evidence to support that? Do you think transcripts have a big red letter R stamped on them or even say "expelled" at all?

, and yet you are on the record of not supporting any due process rights for college students falsely accused of rape.

That is a blatant and gross misrepresentation but par for your course in these matters.

Belief means you are prejudging the case.

No, it does not. You can repeat that all you want but that does not make it true.

And calling everybody who disagrees with you "rape apologists" is really low.

That is true, no one to my knowledge is calling everybody a "rape apologist" who disagrees.

 

[TomC]

You see a homeless guy dying in the street from pneumonia and you bash his head in with a rock, are you any less a murderer?

In what universe is that relevant?
Tom

The same one as your "what ifs" .

Could you explain that a bit more?

Floyd was put in a police car. He was safe there. He demanded to be let out. He was.

Could you explain what you mean by "what ifs"? What I was talking about was the "since thens". Floyd got what he wanted. Since he did, he's pretty much responsible for the outcome.
Not entirely. Chauvin could have done better. But mostly Floyd got his way. Didn't work out well, as often happens when drug addled people get their way.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The same one as your "what ifs" .

Could you explain that a bit more?

Floyd was put in a police car. He was safe there. He demanded to be let out. He was.

Could you explain what you mean by "what ifs"? What I was talking about was the "since thens". Floyd got what he wanted. Since he did, he's pretty much responsible for the outcome.
Not entirely. Chauvin could have done better. But mostly Floyd got his way. Didn't work out well, as often happens when drug addled people get their way.
Tom

It is ridiculous to say Mr. Floyd wanted death because that is what he got. To say he is responsible for having Mr. Chauvin violated Minneapolis police procedure and sit on his neck for more than 8 minutes is idiotic.

 

[Toni]

The same one as your "what ifs" .

Could you explain that a bit more?

Floyd was put in a police car. He was safe there. He demanded to be let out. He was.

Could you explain what you mean by "what ifs"? What I was talking about was the "since thens". Floyd got what he wanted. Since he did, he's pretty much responsible for the outcome.
Not entirely. Chauvin could have done better. But mostly Floyd got his way. Didn't work out well, as often happens when drug addled people get their way.
Tom

Your description of events is dramatically at odds with actual events.

 

[Arctish]

Derec, what was the point you were trying to make when you introduced George Floyd and #Believe Women into this discussion?

Are you suggesting the clerk who reported Floyd had paid for something with a counterfeit bill should not have been believed if they were female, but should have been believed if they were male? Or are you saying the clerk should not have been believed at all? And how does this relate to the OP?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fine, if you want to look at it like that, I'm blaming the victim. The victim had the choice of indulging in a trivial act that had a great chance to de-escalate a tense situation and he chose not to do so. Cops shouldn't "get away with that" and neither should any of us. His failure to recognize this choice for the bad choice that it was likely contributed to the increased danger of himself and his son.

And just to be clear, I'm not ONLY blaming the victim. She screwed up, but he did too and it doesn't help society to ignore or excuse people making bad choices like this. Life isn't like a simplistic TV drama where one side is the good guys and one side is the bad guys. Sometimes everyone is the badguy. Sometimes everyone is the good guy but they all make bad choices. Why can't we recognize this fact so that we can move on and all make better choices?

Showing a nutcase the phone risks her snatching it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was not uncommon on the tv show COPS that women were arrested for domestic violence.

It's not uncommon in real life either.

"COPS" was following real police recording what they did. Thus it was real life, although no guarantee the cases presented are representative of everything the police see.

 

[ZiprHead]

New video shows woman attacking teen she falsely accused of stealing her iPhone at Soho hotel

Authorities in New York City released parts of a security camera video Wednesday showing a woman rushing at and attempting to tackle the 14-year-old son of jazz musician Keyon Harrold who she falsely accused of stealing her iPhone that she left in an Uber.

The 10-second clip shows the woman tackling Keyon Harrold Jr. and encircling her arms around him on Saturday in the lobby of the Arlo Soho, an upscale, boutique hotel in New York where Harrold and his son were guests, the hotel said.

The New York City Police Department said Tuesday that the teen's father “sustained scratches to his hand.” No other injuries were reported.

Police said they are searching for the woman and have “positively identified” her, but have not publicly identified her. The incident was not being investigated as a bias incident, according to police. Harrold and his son are Black and have suggested that racial bias played a role in the incident.

Video in the link.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Objectivity

I really wouldn't expect anything other than local news to cover this or the bicyclists attack on the BMW in Manhattan. If you search both with NYTimes preceding... well, you probably know what the results will be. Maybe I'm missing the mark with "NYTimes Manhattan BMW attack". I have no trouble finding this story. "NYTimes Harrold", "NYTimes Arlo".

As messed up as the young lady's conduct was, I still see no racial component to glom onto. Perhaps in time when her name is released for social pillorying there will be something, some little thing we can pretzel into a less than "woke" comment by her. I can't imagine she doesn't have a facebook page. She has yet to be outed by any facebook "friend". We'll see. Or not, depending on the outcome and our news sources.

 

[TomC]

Since the Floyd discussion is a derail, I'll just quote one thing from Wikipedia:

According to prosecutors, Floyd told the officers that he was not resisting, but that he was recovering from COVID-19, that he was claustrophobic and suffered from anxiety, and that he did not want to sit in the car.[8][9][15]:3:10[61] While Kueng and Lane attempted to put him in the car, Floyd begged them not to, repeatedly saying "I can't breathe" and offering to lie on the ground instead.[9][61][62] During his interview with crime investigators, Lane said that he first saw Floyd bleeding from the mouth at that moment, which he attributed to his "thrashing back and forth" in the car and hitting his face on the glass that goes to the front seat.

Had Floyd stayed in the car this tragedy wouldn't have happened. Not justifying Chauvin, just pointing out that there's plenty of blame to spread around.

Somehow this part of the story doesn't get mentioned much by the SJWs.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

And you believed that?

 

[Mumbles]

Since the Floyd discussion is a derail, I'll just quote one thing from Wikipedia:

According to prosecutors, Floyd told the officers that he was not resisting, but that he was recovering from COVID-19, that he was claustrophobic and suffered from anxiety, and that he did not want to sit in the car.[8][9][15]:3:10[61] While Kueng and Lane attempted to put him in the car, Floyd begged them not to, repeatedly saying "I can't breathe" and offering to lie on the ground instead.[9][61][62] During his interview with crime investigators, Lane said that he first saw Floyd bleeding from the mouth at that moment, which he attributed to his "thrashing back and forth" in the car and hitting his face on the glass that goes to the front seat.

Had Floyd stayed in the car this tragedy wouldn't have happened. Not justifying Chauvin, just pointing out that there's plenty of blame to spread around.

Somehow this part of the story doesn't get mentioned much by the SJWs.
Tom

Putting aside the undefined insult "SJW"...someone who is obviously freaking out does not mean "put your full weight on his neck for 8+ minutes." That one should be obvious.

 

[TomC]

And you believed that?

Well, if you insist on derailing...
Why wouldn't I? It was reported by local news covering the court proceedings. Now it's on Wikipedia.
And frankly, it's more plausible than than the common narrative about a blood thirsty killer looking for a black man to murder.

And let me repeat something. I'm not justifying how Chauvin handled it. He clearly screwed up royally.
Tom

 

[WAB]

And you believed that?

Well, if you insist on derailing...
Why wouldn't I? It was reported by local news covering the court proceedings. Now it's on Wikipedia.
And frankly, it's more plausible than than the common narrative about a blood thirsty killer looking for a black man to murder.

And let me repeat something. I'm not justifying how Chauvin handled it. He clearly screwed up royally.
Tom

Are you claustrophobic? If someone did that to me I would react in an even worse way.