What We Don’t Want to See

21 06 2017

Minneapolis-St. Paul

I’m trying to wrap my mind around the concept of twelve people watching this and all of them coming up with “not guilty” for it.

The only thing I can come up with is that, through my extensive observation and study of human nature, that, if we have enough trust and confidence in the central state, if we think we’re better off with a given state having power than not, then we will give almost universal benefit of the doubt to the armed enforcers of the state’s will, especially its domestic patrol level men and women.  Sometimes, as we now have “smoking gun” proof, too much benefit.

Cognitive dissonance sometimes means that people, including twelve random adults in Ramsey County, Minnesota, are willingly oblivious to the obvious.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

18 responses

21 06 2017
I

I thought it was another stupid game, stupid prize thing. Don’t pull the gun, don’t get shot.

21 06 2017
Tom MacGyver

I’m not trying to defend one side or the other here. That being said, there’s nothing in the video to show what the guy was going for. That’s reasonable doubt, whether y’like it or not. The woman in the back sounded like she was reciting into a recorder that he was reaching for his ID, but the cop thought he wasn’t. The attitude of the cop wasn’t “evil.” He was obviously distraught, having had to use his gun. If I was on that jury, and the video was the only (unbiased) evidence, I’d go “not guilty” myself. I’m not “oblivious to the obvious,” as there’s nothing “obvious” here. One could say that the cop went overboard with the number of shots fired, but then again; what was happening? The cop kept saying “stop moving.” One could argue that he thought he missed his mark and had to fire again; again, reasonable doubt… You can’t convict on what you think might have happened…

21 06 2017
countenance

And I’m not going to rattle your chain for thinking that, either. The point of this isn’t to argue balls and strikes, it’s to note that people give cops almost all of the benefit of the doubt. If anyone construes any hint of doubt on behalf of the cop, then the cop will never be formally convicted in a criminal sense for anything he does in the line of duty.

I’m also saying that I can’t find any such doubt here. Of course I’m saying that as someone who knows the back story circumstances, which contributes to how I interpret the video. I’m sure the jurors knew of all those back story circumstances, too.

21 06 2017
Tom MacGyver

That’s the thing; I don’t have all the info. All I have is a video. Given the info have, that’s the verdict I’d render. I’ve come down on both sides with these things before. Some videos show outright, innocence or guilt on one side or the other. This wasn’t one of them…

As for the cops; what’s the solution; not to give them any authority? If we do that, we’re back to the Old West again. Say… that might not be a bad idea… Thieves and murderers hung summarily, open carry… Heck we’re headed that way, like it or not…

21 06 2017
stuartsullivaniii

Why do we not see OJ-level riots .. any idea? It’s summer and sheeit. Just not enough persons of A Certain Narrow Color Range in Minnesota?

21 06 2017
countenance

Enough in Mpls-STP to do a lot of damage.

21 06 2017
Avenge Harambe

I’ve noticed that there have been no significant negro riots lately (this case, the one where the female officer shot the PCP stoner through the car window and the Tamir Rice incident). My theory is that the previous Justice Dept. was actively stoking the negro rioting.

Now that the Trump/Sessions administration is in control, they have shut down these activities. Remember the overlooked news story from a few weeks ago, were it was reported that Sessions had shut down the DOJ’s cibil rites activist programs. No more gibs and assistance to encourage the rioting.

21 06 2017
Robert Browning

Riots are an expression of a groups power. Blacks don’t feel as strong since Obama’s been gone.

21 06 2017
countenance

What I wrote has gotten me to think about this that and the other, which in turn means I’m going to strap on the ole philosophical feed bag. Everyone likes my philosophical feed bag.

This is the reason why the libertarian right never went anywhere. It’s because, in spite of its (mostly correct) complaining about the abusive state, people will stick with the incumbent state even through all those abuses until they figure there’s a better option, and therefore, they’ll grant even the oft-abusive armed agents of that state the benefit of the doubt. The libertarian right could never offer a better option. Because, when it tried to present the case that it should be trusted with power, the first thing they did was run their traps about how Social Security and Medicare are illegitimate extensions of state power. And then they wonder why next to nobody trusted them with power. Even if you factor that out, the libertarians’ natural aversion to state power neutralized their ability to try to be credible competitors for wielding state power. So, if they didn’t advance a case that repelled 99.99% of people, then they didn’t even advance a case at all.

Incidentally, this is the main reason why modern first world states are more robust and are far less likely to lose credibility, ceteris paribus, than in the past, because of the social welfare state. This means that, because the central state is giving your grandmother a check every month and guaranteed health care, it means that they could fuck up in all other ways even worse than they are now, be even more abusive than they are now, and still maintain credibility and still maintain citizen and civilian loyalty.

Also, there’s Occam’s Razor, Blogmeister’s Corollary — Among competing hypotheses, the one with the most cynicism should be selected. Pursuant to that, I happen to think halfway that the parentheticals deliberately pumped up right-libertarianism to cock block the right away from the nationalism that the parentheticals really fear, and also wasting the right’s political energy into the dummy load (ham radio thing — Look it up) and dead end of libertarianism. Though I should say that I can think of reasons why that precise theory is problematic.

Point being, in spite of the as-yet unfulfilled promises thereof here in the Era of the OCGE, this is the underrated reason why 2016 was such a shell shock to the political system. It demonstrated that populism-nationalism that walked away from the unpopular elements of economic libertarianism was the (and in fact, the only) path to victory for the modern right, and that libertarianism, neoconservatism, lamestream (normie) conservatism, RINO-ism, centrist establishmentarianism, are all somewhere between non-starters, losers or yesterday’s news.

21 06 2017
Harlan

I see all your points. I just wonder what role base (racial) tribalism ultimately plays in our political decisions…a little, some, or quite a lot?

21 06 2017
stuartsullivaniii

I too am very philosophical feedbag.

Juries in St. Louis city were routinely not believing cops for the last few decades on “cops word versus defendants word” cases. So maybe it’s not so much Pro-cop as it is pro-defendant (s/k/a “the Little guy”). Which is actually kind of actually “anti-State” because the State is bringing the charges. So Libertarians win after all.

21 06 2017
Nicholas Stix

stuartsullivaniii

But that’s a pro-black/anti-white thing, whereby any cop who kills a black automatically becomes “white.”

21 06 2017
Alex the Goon

You guys have more info on this than me. Ten minutes of signing in to gooogle to protect my virgin eyes, the damn video never did load.
I’ve been Who-Whom for a long time now; and this was Notmypeople-On-Notmypeople violence from Day One. ZFG if they all died. I also know that 12 random jurors DGAF about me, and never will. Even if they are Mypeople-ish.

21 06 2017
hondo

OK – I’ll say it – what I see here is incompetence and fear
Cops always deserve a benefit of a doubt ……….. up to a point!
If there was a dog in the backseat, he probably would have shot it too.
Not an issue that can be tackled in current climate.

22 06 2017
Truth-hammer

Negroes are always guilty, all of the time. No need to IKAGO them. We are all very fair racists here.

22 06 2017
sondjata

I’d be interested in knowing the “back story information” you have that overcomes the clear reasonable doubt presented in the video. Let’s give that Yanez was perhaps too nervous for the job, you don’t have to tell me 3 times to not reach for whatever I’m reaching for for me to stop reaching. How many police have been shot by people who were “cooperating” in the beginning?

22 06 2017
Joshua Sinistar

Please explain to these twelve people who had nothing better to do and are sequestered on this jury why your lawyer is more honest than ours. But with only so much time before we break for lunch.
Order in the court. Two drink minimum. Please tip for better service. Pay for play. Listen to these experts disagree with those experts and ignore anything the guy wearing that black dress doesn’t like. And remember, this is a court of law, so keep that morality and justice crap at home. And now a word from our sponsor.

23 06 2017
dale gribble

Did you read Dick Morris’ pro-Trump book last yeat Armageddon , how trump can beat Hillary? in one chapter he discusses wedge issues Trump could use to split the Dem base , one was blaming big city Dem leaders for police brutality




%d bloggers like this: