White Teen Beaten To Death By 15 Black Teens...

[Cerebrum123]

A jury determined that Floyd was murdered (second degree homicide, not first degree as I believe someone had suggested). And while you're trying to make this into something of a "if he had only complied, he wouldn't have died" sort of thing, the principle cause of death was due to police actions that violated both the law and their training. Your argument — that Floyd is principally responsible for his death because "he put himself in that situation" — imagines up a paradigm where police can use excessive, even illegal, force to injure or kill people they detain and, just so long as there's a predicate for that encounter, face no criminal repercussion.

Now that'd be intolerable to any rational person. But the truth is that many police officers and departments do use excessive force and get away with it. And that use of excessive force is directed toward Black people in America much more often than it is toward white people. And that's the systemic racism of police brutality that was highlighted in the Floyd murder, not some conjured-up scene where Chauvin killed Floyd out of racial animus.

-Sam

Even second-degree murder is still a miscarriage of justice given the available evidence. Here is the definition of second-degree murder from the Legal Dictionary website.

Second Degree Murder


Second degree murder is the criminal act of killing another person with intent, but without pre-meditation. In simple terms, a person can face second degree murder charges if he intentionally causes another person to lose his life, with no pre-planning, or without taking an opportunity to put some thought into it. Second degree murder is less serious than first degree murder, and is not subject to the death penalty. The exact laws regarding second degree murder vary by jurisdiction, but in all states, it is considered a felony crime, and the penalties are severe.

Typically, a person can be found guilty of second degree murder if any of the following circumstances exist:

• The killing was the result of an act that was intended to cause serious harm
• The killing was the result of an act that shows the perpetrator had an indifference to human life
• The killing was done impulsively, in a time of high emotion

For example:

Jim and Rob are walking in opposite directions down the street. Jim bumps into Rob and continues walking without apologizing. Rob gets angry, pulls out a gun and shoots Jim. Rob can be convicted of second degree murder as he had intentions to kill Jim, but it was not premeditated.

You could try and make an argument that Chauvin met the second of those circumstances but that takes a lot of reaching to even make the attempt. Negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter fits the situation given the available evidence.

[Diogenes]

Even second-degree murder is still a miscarriage of justice given the available evidence.

Ironically that statement holds true on both sides despite different views on what is meant by "justice".

[Cow Poke]

Ironically that statement holds true on both sides despite different views on what is meant by "justice".

Then precede it with the word "social".

[Diogenes]

Then precede it with the word "social".

"Restorative" would be the buzz word now that "social justice" has outlived its usefulness as a façade.

[Cow Poke]

"Restorative" would be the buzz word now that "social justice" has outlived its usefulness as a façade.

True -- and it's funny because a local school board member was bragging about how the district was much better since they started employing "restorative justice".....
then a friend of hers showed her the definition of the phrase, along with a factual timeline of discipline erosion in the district.
She - the board member - was quite honestly surprised --- she had no idea whatsoever what "restorative justice" was, or how badly it was impacting discipline.

[Sam]

The fact that if you don't commit a criminal act and don't act erratic and try to resist if you do, chances of death due to police negligence are probably near zero regardless of your race. That's a fact, and I find it hilarious you keep dancing around that fact.

Do you deny there are statistics that show black men disproportionately committing more violent crime than other races (I know you probably think stats are racist, but it is what it is)? If you don't deny this, would that not disproportionately affect police interaction with black men? That's what happens when you cherry-pick data. Would you suggest police treat violent black criminals with less excessive responses than violent criminals of other races to get the numbers even?

You traveled from trying to establish that Floyd wasn't killed by police action but by something else (e.g., overdose) to the ever-risible fallback of "Well, if he wasn't doing what he shouldn't do, he'd still be alive". You attempt to ignore the well-documented phenomenon of disproportionate police force against Black persons in America by falling back to the hoary trope of Black people being more prone to violent criminality, despite the fact that Floyd wasn't being detained for a violent crime and despite the fact that the BLM protests were not only centered around Floyd but also people like Brianna Taylor and Philando Castile who were also carelessly murdered by police while not engaging in violent crime (or any crime at all, in fact).

In short, you made things up and, when corrected, refused to acknowledge that you were making things up. Instead, you took it as an opportunity to create a paradigm for yourself where excessive police force can be excused so long as police start the encounter on some predicate of alleged criminality and encounter resistance. That's not partaking in serious and honest discussion.

-Sam

[mossrose]

Why did the white boy in the story in the op die?

[CivilDiscourse]

Why did the white boy in the story in the op die?

Repeated blunt force trauma.

[Cow Poke]

Why did the white boy in the story in the op die?

Do we know that he died?
The linked-to story from a Fox Affiliate reports he's on life support...

Father of beaten Las Vegas high school student on life support speaks out on ‘absurd madness’ of situation

OK, nevermind.... I found an update.... (I just like to check more than one source, particularly when it's one the liberals would tend to attack)

Las Vegas teen dies after being attacked by 15 people while defending friend, father says

A Las Vegas teenager died after he was attacked this month by about 15 people while he was defending a friend, his father said.

A minor was in a fight on Nov. 1 with more than a dozen people near Rancho High School, Las Vegas police said in a statement. At least some of the fight was recorded and shared on social media.

Jonathan Lewis Jr.'s death was confirmed on a memorial website written by his father.

“After holding my son’s hand in the hospital while on life support for 2 days and nights and watching his life leave his body and being shocked by the immensity and horror of my beloved boy just being beaten to death I felt a mission to act that moved me to my core,” his father, Jonathan Lewis Sr., wrote.

(but I note the headline is that he was attacked by "15 people")

[Sam]

“Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards” - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to a congregation in 1961.

A misattribution:

Source: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42476/did-martin-luther-king-jr-say-do-you-know-that-negroes-are-10-percent-of-the-p

Not quite.

According to this list he only held two speeches in 1961:

1. The Modern Negro Activist (text)
2. The Negro and the American Dream (text)

Neither of which contain said quote.

However, as Mohammad Patrick Ročka pointed out:

The quote above is paraphrased, and mixing up Dr. King's statements about New York and St. Louis Here is the real quote starting with the second sentence of this section extracted from of Dr. King's speech given 57 years ago ( 5 December 1957 “Some Things We Must Do,” Address Delivered at the 2nd Annual Institute on Nonviolence , Montgomery, Ala. )

"Let us be honest with ourselves, and say that we, our standards have lagged behind at many points. Negroes constitute ten percent of the population of New York City, and yet they commit thirty-five percent of the crime. St. Louis, Missouri: the Negroes constitute twenty-six percent of the population, and yet seventy-six percent of the persons on the list for aid to dependent children are Negroes. We have eight times more illegitimacy than white persons. We’ve got to face all of these things. We must work to improve these standards. We must sit down quietly by the wayside, and ask ourselves: “Where can we improve?” What are the things that white people are saying about us? They say that we want integration because we want to marry white people. Well, we know that is a falsehood. (That’s right) We know that. We don’t have to worry about that. (All right) Then on the other hand, they say some other things about us, and maybe there is some truth in them. Maybe we could be more sanitary; maybe we could be a little more clean. You may not have enough money to take a weekend trip to Paris, France, and buy all of the fascinating and enticing perfumes. You may not be able to do that, but you are not so poor that you cannot buy a five cents bar of soap (Yeah) so that you can wash before [word inaudible]. [applause] And another thing my friends, we kill each other too much. (All right, yes) We cut up each other too much. (Yes, Yes sir) There is something that we can do. We’ve got to go down in the quiet hour and think about this thing. We’ve got to lift our moral standards at every hand, at every point. You may not have a Ph.D. degree; you may not have an M.A. degree; you may not have an A.B. degree. But the great thing about life is that any man can be good, and honest, and ethical, and moral, and can have character. (Well, Yes) [applause] We must walk the street every day, and let people know that as we walk the street, we aren’t thinking about sex every time we turn around. (No, That’s right) We are not animals (No) to be degraded at every moment. (Yeah) We know that we’re made for the stars, created for eternity, born for the everlasting (Yes), and we stand by it. [applause] (All right, All right) There are some things that we can do. (Yes) We must improve our standards (Yeah); improve our conduct; we must improve our sanitary conditions; we must even improve our cultural standards. There are many things that we can do. Opportunities are open now that were not open in the past, adult education and all of these things-we must take advantage of them. (Yeah) There are things that we can do to make ourselves respected by others. Let me rush on. There’s a third thing we must do, that we can do. We must achieve excellency in our various fields of activity and our various fields of endeavor. This is a new day, and that simply means that doors are opening now that were not open in the past. Opportunities stand before us now that did not stand before us in the past. And the great challenge before the Negro at this hour is to be ready to enter these doors as they open. (Yes, All right) Ralph Waldo Emerson said in an essay back in 1871 that if a man can write a better book or preach a better sermon or make a better mousetrap than his neighbor, even if he builds his house in the woods, the world will make a beaten path to his door.13 (Yes) We must get ready and do the job, the opportunities will stand there for us."

© Copyright Original Source

And while King's pastoral call to moral betterment is well-intended and should be well-taken, it's not a sociological analysis or critique of disproportionate racial crime rates. King and other Black leaders then and now understood that you can't separate the ongoing effects of racial discrimination from culture and crime: poverty leads to criminality, no matter a subpopulation's race:

Source: Ulmer JT, Harris CT, Steffensmeier D. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Structural Disadvantage and Crime: White, Black, and Hispanic Comparisons. Soc Sci Q. 2012 Sep 1;93(3):799-819. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00868.x. PMID: 25035523; PMCID: PMC4097310.

We have extended research by Velez et al. (2003) by investigating the relationships between gaps in Black, White, and Hispanic disadvantage (rather than just Black-White differences) and between-group gaps in homicide and index violence (rather than just homicide), with more recent data and a novel unit of analysis. As Velez et al. (2003) argue, treating the race-ethnic gap in violence itself as a dependent variable accounts for the differential distribution of disadvantage between race and ethnic groups, especially Blacks and Whites, and allows us to further examine the impact of inequality on crime across at the community-level.

As proponents of the racial invariance perspective contend, group differences in structural disadvantage should strongly predict racial and ethnic differences in homicide and violence. We find moderate, but not unqualified, support for this position. Our analyses show that, among the structural disadvantage variables, gaps in poverty appear to significantly affect homicide. That is, there are greater Black-White, Black-Hispanic, and Hispanic-White differences in homicide where there are greater between-group differences in poverty. In addition, there is evidence that when it is considered alongside other key macro-structural controls (but without the other disadvantage indicators), gaps in female headship predict White-Hispanic gaps in homicide and (to a lesser extent) Black-White and Black-Hispanic gaps. In addition, gaps in the relative size of the young, male population helps to explain Hispanic-White homicide gaps. Regarding overall index violence, racial/ethnic gaps in poverty and unemployment are associated with greater racial/ethnic disparities in violence individually (net of controls). Gaps in female headship, however, consistently and positively predict violent crime gaps even when poverty and unemployment are simultaneously included in the models, especially the gap between Black and Hispanic violence.

In sum, gaps in various structural disadvantage predictors, especially poverty and female headship, exert important influences on the relative size of homicide and violence gaps. However, gaps in disadvantage do not fully explain Black-White and Black-Hispanic violence gaps. Much variation remains unexplained. Cultural and social organizational differences may be at play, too, in explaining racial and ethnic differences in violence. In particular, even though gaps in poverty and female headship significantly explained Black-Hispanic homicide and violence gaps, differences in dimensions of disadvantage between Blacks and Hispanics may not be the full explanation of differences in violence between blacks and Hispanics. Note that in Table 1, Black-Hispanic poverty and unemployment gaps are minimal compared to gaps of both groups vis a vis Whites, though Black-Hispanic gaps in female headed households are more substantial. Yet, Black-Hispanic gaps in violence and homicide are substantially greater than Hispanic-White crime gaps. Although Hispanic communities experience similar levels of disadvantage to blacks, their cultural and social capital may insulate them at least somewhat from the worst violence-producing effects of structural disadvantage.

© Copyright Original Source

And it's a red herring, in any event: we're talking about excessive police violence during encounters, not whether people of one race commit more crimes than others and why that's so. A person can't use the latter argument to invalidate criticisms of police brutality toward Black persons during engagements.

-Sam

[mossrose]

Repeated blunt force trauma.

I know that much. People in this thread are talking about Floyd and he died because of the bad white police. I want to know why the boy in this story died.

[Sam]

Even second-degree murder is still a miscarriage of justice given the available evidence. Here is the definition of second-degree murder from the Legal Dictionary website.

Second Degree Murder


Second degree murder is the criminal act of killing another person with intent, but without pre-meditation. In simple terms, a person can face second degree murder charges if he intentionally causes another person to lose his life, with no pre-planning, or without taking an opportunity to put some thought into it. Second degree murder is less serious than first degree murder, and is not subject to the death penalty. The exact laws regarding second degree murder vary by jurisdiction, but in all states, it is considered a felony crime, and the penalties are severe.

Typically, a person can be found guilty of second degree murder if any of the following circumstances exist:

• The killing was the result of an act that was intended to cause serious harm
• The killing was the result of an act that shows the perpetrator had an indifference to human life
• The killing was done impulsively, in a time of high emotion

For example:

Jim and Rob are walking in opposite directions down the street. Jim bumps into Rob and continues walking without apologizing. Rob gets angry, pulls out a gun and shoots Jim. Rob can be convicted of second degree murder as he had intentions to kill Jim, but it was not premeditated.

You could try and make an argument that Chauvin met the second of those circumstances but that takes a lot of reaching to even make the attempt. Negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter fits the situation given the available evidence.

Well, you were wrong about it being a first-degree murder charge so that's the first item on the agenda.

The second item, the merit of a conviction on second-degree murder, would require a good bit of knowledge of both the relevant case law of the charges in the state where the charges are made and tried and of the trial proceedings before a person could justly critique the findings of the jury and judge on this matter. Chauvin has access to the appeals process and, while I don't ding people for making some judgements on the merit of the legal system, it takes a lot more to overturn a conviction than finding a generalized bullet list on a legal dictionary.

-Sam

[Cerebrum123]

Consistently Used? Ive acknowledged that as a common definition which has merit, but I dont regularly trot it out, and I'm not using it here.

When others have asked you to define the term you have consistently used that definition. It's the only one that supports the CRT propaganda and has no real merit. It was literally invented to win arguments by changing the definition away from something verifiable. It's a definition that changes the problem from something that can be lessened, although never eliminated, to one that is impossible to solve and has actively worsened the previous problem.

Sure it has. That's why even though it's a common definition used in university classrooms, it's flawed. Because it has been thoroughly researched and refuted by some guy on the internet. Got it

You do realize that you don't have to have a Ph.D to refute an argument, right? Credentialism is a plague on humanity. Judge arguments on their merits and not by who they come from. Oh, and while I specifically named one person, I also said many more people have thoroughly refuted this definition. PSA Sitch is just one of the more easily accessible refutations online. I like to make sure I have an online source when discussing issues with others online that aren't behind paywalls or some such. The definition in question wasn't invented by sociologists but by a teacher who invented it for the purpose of winning arguments and propagating her ideology. A very toxic and virulently racist ideology at that.

[Cerebrum123]

Ironically that statement holds true on both sides despite different views on what is meant by "justice".

But they have to redefine justice to get there. Under their ideology one has to invert the concept so that treating people differently based on race is acceptable so long as a certain group benefits even if it disadvantages other minority groups.

[mossrose]

And it's a red herring, in any event: we're talking about excessive police violence during encounters, not whether people of one race commit more crimes than others and why that's so. A person can't use the latter argument to invalidate criticisms of police brutality toward Black persons during engagements.

-Sam

No, we aren’t talking about that. We’re talking about a white teenage boy beaten to death by a large number of black teenagers because he was defending another child.