Shopping & Style0 min ago
Who Says Crime Doesn't Pay?
117 Answers
https:/
...why don't they wait for the outcome of the "trial"?
...why don't they wait for the outcome of the "trial"?
Answers
That's got to be a joke right? It was terrible way the man died, but I'm a bit tired about it turning into a race issue; the only person in the world who knows whether it was a race issue is Chauvin, and he's hardly likely to admit it. Another view, of course, is that Chauvin was restraining a known violent criminal. The thing that irritates the bejesus the most out of...
20:37 Fri 12th Mar 2021
It is utterly irrelevant in these circumstances whether he was innocent or guilty or good or bad. He should not have died in the way he did. He was not waving a gun nor threatening to detonate a bomb or other such activities which might justify the use of immediate lethal force. I care not about his sex, his race, his religion, his previous convictions - he should not have been killed in the way he was.
If you must insist on a value judgement of innocent or guilty, then if this had been a 12 year old child who had just nicked a bottle of pop, presumably it is still OK? A man who has just stabbed his abusive and violent wife in trying to flee yet another assault? A 96 year old man who had just smothered his dying wife in what he saw as an act of mercy? All potentially guilty.
His guilt or innocence is irrelevant. If he was sentenced to death for his crimes after due process, so be it (and this is not intended to spark a debate about the death penalty), but this was an arrest. Nothing more. His neck was knelt on for 8 minutes. That is not a recognised method of restraint.
If you must insist on a value judgement of innocent or guilty, then if this had been a 12 year old child who had just nicked a bottle of pop, presumably it is still OK? A man who has just stabbed his abusive and violent wife in trying to flee yet another assault? A 96 year old man who had just smothered his dying wife in what he saw as an act of mercy? All potentially guilty.
His guilt or innocence is irrelevant. If he was sentenced to death for his crimes after due process, so be it (and this is not intended to spark a debate about the death penalty), but this was an arrest. Nothing more. His neck was knelt on for 8 minutes. That is not a recognised method of restraint.
In your example, you both would have committed exactly the same crime. So, why is one "worse" than another?
_________________
?
I would have committed a crime the police would be doing their job not committing the same crime.
andy hughes says
The point that some posters seem wilfully determined to ignore, is that Mr Floyd was, and indeed is, innocent by definition, since at the time of his death, he was not charged, tried or convicted of the offence for which he was arrested.
________________
According to that criminals that have killed and then are killed by the police are not guilty. Bizarre.
That's why the guilty/innocent argument is daft.
As Barmaid say there was no danger to the public from Floyd at that particular time.
_________________
?
I would have committed a crime the police would be doing their job not committing the same crime.
andy hughes says
The point that some posters seem wilfully determined to ignore, is that Mr Floyd was, and indeed is, innocent by definition, since at the time of his death, he was not charged, tried or convicted of the offence for which he was arrested.
________________
According to that criminals that have killed and then are killed by the police are not guilty. Bizarre.
That's why the guilty/innocent argument is daft.
As Barmaid say there was no danger to the public from Floyd at that particular time.
That was what I said, roy. There was no danger to anyone else at that point. You seem to be using examples where other lives could be immediately at risk- and self-defence is legitimate.
If you shot someone in the street and got shot... that might be valid if there was a risk to others. Even then, I'm not sure whether they would shoot to kill or to incapacitate you. In any case, they are entirely different situations to kneeling on the neck of someone who can't move- for that long. You are comparing different situations as if they are the same.
If you shot someone in the street and got shot... that might be valid if there was a risk to others. Even then, I'm not sure whether they would shoot to kill or to incapacitate you. In any case, they are entirely different situations to kneeling on the neck of someone who can't move- for that long. You are comparing different situations as if they are the same.
No I'm not.
The thread has got into a mess because of the innocent/not innocent argument. andy has made the thread weird with opinions like this.
//I for one have serious 'hang ups' about society's willingness to condemn the late Mr Saville without a proper trial, evidence, and a chance to defend himself as society decrees he is entitled to do.//
I'm one of the few on here who called Savile what he was when he was alive but every time I said that...it was removed.
Can I also say I can't remember there being a counter argument when ABers found Chauvin guilty without a trial (me included) when the video was first viewed. I'm not sure why so many have now decided Chauvin may not be guilty.
The thread has got into a mess because of the innocent/not innocent argument. andy has made the thread weird with opinions like this.
//I for one have serious 'hang ups' about society's willingness to condemn the late Mr Saville without a proper trial, evidence, and a chance to defend himself as society decrees he is entitled to do.//
I'm one of the few on here who called Savile what he was when he was alive but every time I said that...it was removed.
Can I also say I can't remember there being a counter argument when ABers found Chauvin guilty without a trial (me included) when the video was first viewed. I'm not sure why so many have now decided Chauvin may not be guilty.
Roy, I'm honestly not sure, as the thread is confusing, whether people are suggesting Chauvin is genuinely not guilty or whether they are trying to justify it somehow.
As far as innocent/ guilty goes... he actually did die "an innocent man" as his death was not supposed to happen at that point. No matter what he did in the past, he was actually the victim here... so innocent in that he wasn't meant to die.
As far as innocent/ guilty goes... he actually did die "an innocent man" as his death was not supposed to happen at that point. No matter what he did in the past, he was actually the victim here... so innocent in that he wasn't meant to die.
roy - // I'm one of the few on here who called Savile what he was when he was alive ... //
No, you called him for what you believe he was, with no actual legal case being brought and no conviction being secured.
There are a large number of people on here who want laws to be a moveable feast - applicable to some but not to others, depending on the circumstances that suit their point of view.
But the law has to be applied without fear or favour to absolutely everyone without fear of favour, or it ceases to have meaning and power.
On the basis that Mr Floyd was not convicted of any offence for which he was being arrested, he died an innocent man.
As I have said, people don't like that, but it does not alter the fact.
No, you called him for what you believe he was, with no actual legal case being brought and no conviction being secured.
There are a large number of people on here who want laws to be a moveable feast - applicable to some but not to others, depending on the circumstances that suit their point of view.
But the law has to be applied without fear or favour to absolutely everyone without fear of favour, or it ceases to have meaning and power.
On the basis that Mr Floyd was not convicted of any offence for which he was being arrested, he died an innocent man.
As I have said, people don't like that, but it does not alter the fact.
Whilst there was no criminal case against Jimmy Savile, there were numbers of civil claims against his estate which are ongoing. I accept that does not make him guilty in the sense he has been found guilty after trial, but at least on a civil standard there was deemed to be sufficient evidence to make damage payments for personal injury for abuse. (And yes, I am well aware of the different standards of proof).
But JS died naturally; he was not killed during an arrest. And actually, this example is a perfect one for the OP. There was and will never any criminal conviction for JS yet his estate has paid out millions in damages to people who have claimed against him in personal injury for assaults and abuse.
But JS died naturally; he was not killed during an arrest. And actually, this example is a perfect one for the OP. There was and will never any criminal conviction for JS yet his estate has paid out millions in damages to people who have claimed against him in personal injury for assaults and abuse.
Barmaid - // Whilst there was no criminal case against Jimmy Savile, there were numbers of civil claims against his estate which are ongoing. I accept that does not make him guilty in the sense he has been found guilty after trial, but at least on a civil standard there was deemed to be sufficient evidence to make damage payments for personal injury for abuse. (And yes, I am well aware of the different standards of proof).
But JS died naturally; he was not killed during an arrest. And actually, this example is a perfect one for the OP. There was and will never any criminal conviction for JS yet his estate has paid out millions in damages to people who have claimed against him in personal injury for assaults and abuse. //
A fair point - there is precident for cases that have not gone to trial at all, or where the defendent has been found not guilty, where civil suits have been successfully brought and compensation paid out.
It is, as you say, an indication of the fact that the burden of proof in a civil case is often less strnuous than that required in a criminal case - which brings us neatly back to where we started, with the OP questioning why the court cases against the officers involved have not been concluded before a civil case was heard and adjudicated.
But JS died naturally; he was not killed during an arrest. And actually, this example is a perfect one for the OP. There was and will never any criminal conviction for JS yet his estate has paid out millions in damages to people who have claimed against him in personal injury for assaults and abuse. //
A fair point - there is precident for cases that have not gone to trial at all, or where the defendent has been found not guilty, where civil suits have been successfully brought and compensation paid out.
It is, as you say, an indication of the fact that the burden of proof in a civil case is often less strnuous than that required in a criminal case - which brings us neatly back to where we started, with the OP questioning why the court cases against the officers involved have not been concluded before a civil case was heard and adjudicated.
Dare I bring Michael Jackson into this thread?
Yes, I do dare.
Michael Jackson has been proven to be not guilty in a court of law. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, he didn't do the awful things he was accused of doing.
However, do I believe he didn't do the things?...that's another question, but, because he's not guilty in the eyes of US law, that allows me to continue to listen his undoubted genius guilt free.
The above said, IF he did those things (which we now no he did not because he was found not guilty), I would say the parents of the kids allowed to stay at Neverland were the villains of the piece.
Read this brilliant book by the fantastic John Niven.
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
Yes, I do dare.
Michael Jackson has been proven to be not guilty in a court of law. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, he didn't do the awful things he was accused of doing.
However, do I believe he didn't do the things?...that's another question, but, because he's not guilty in the eyes of US law, that allows me to continue to listen his undoubted genius guilt free.
The above said, IF he did those things (which we now no he did not because he was found not guilty), I would say the parents of the kids allowed to stay at Neverland were the villains of the piece.
Read this brilliant book by the fantastic John Niven.
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
//However, do I believe he didn't do the things?...that's another question, but, because he's not guilty in the eyes of US law, that allows me to continue to listen his undoubted genius guilt free.//
I'd disagree with that. It's a moral decision whether one wishes to continue listening to Jackson's music or not. This is based on what you believe to be the truth about his life, and on whether you can separate artist and man. As others have said previously, there's a difference between being "not guilty" and being "innocent".
Personally, I don't listen to him, but as I never did, it's not really got much to do with his accused offenses.
I'd disagree with that. It's a moral decision whether one wishes to continue listening to Jackson's music or not. This is based on what you believe to be the truth about his life, and on whether you can separate artist and man. As others have said previously, there's a difference between being "not guilty" and being "innocent".
Personally, I don't listen to him, but as I never did, it's not really got much to do with his accused offenses.
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Editor's Blog11 mins ago
