Some suggestions regarding the situation around George Floyd's death. Are these ideas simplistic?

Let’s debate some of the questions surrounding Mr. Floyd’s death and the responses of various groups, including the African-American community in Minneapolis and the police in Minneapolis. In particular, here are some of the questions phrased as problems and solutions that I propose we debate in this thread, and others that I think are best left for other threads.

  1. Problem 1. Racist police officers treat minorities, African-Americans in particular, unfairly, which can lead to someone being killed as happened with Mr. Floyd.

Solution 1a. Police departments make it department policy that officers should not be racist. Should an officer be found to express racist views, that would be a fireable offense.

Solution 1b. Police departments should fill their ranks with officers who are trusted members of local communities.

  1. Problem 2. Protesters are destroying property, looting, etc. and generally harming people who are not directly involved and are possibly even against the situation of having racist officers on police forces.

Solution 2. Focus the anger on those who can do something direct about problem 1. Demand that those who do the hiring for the Minneapolis PD (or any other PD in question) be fired and replaced by people who promise to not hire racist officers. If the person directly in charge of hiring police officers refuses to do so, move the focus up the ranks. Demand the chief of police fire the person / people who do the hiring of police officers. If the chief of police refuses then demand the person / people who hire the chief of police be fired / voted out of office, and move on up the ranks from there if needed.

Items not up for debate and taken as a given for this thread.

  1. The underlying assumption that George Floyd was murdered by a racist police officer.

  2. The fate of the particular officer in question.

Extremely simplistic.

If it were easy, it would have been done in many communities. If the community has lots of racist members, hiring police from that community will reflect that racism. Your false premise starts from the point where you assume the community as a whole feels the actions of the police are totally wrong.

My solution: prosecute each and everyone setting fires, looting, blocking traffic, committing assaults, etc to the fullest extent of the law. If you want to protest you can do so without being a criminal.

If you feel you are being persecuted by law enforcement then there is little logic to obeying the law when protesting about it’s misuse, in fact quite the opposite.

Yes these protesters are likely to be opportunists - but ultimately there is a feeling that unless there are significant consequences to police racial discrimination and societal discrimination, noone in power will take a bit of notice other than offering a few words.

Peaceful protests happen all the time - you don’t hear about them, violent protests make the news worldwide. If publicity and consequences are what you are after what route do you take?

The issue of publicity is what led me to come up with the ideas I mentioned. What good does publicity do unless it leads to change? If the protesters are wanting change, and I assume that to be the case, what forms should those change take?

My assumption is that the wanted change is for police officers to stop treating African-Americans unjustly. I then assume that the best way to achieve that result is to not hire racist officers to begin with and to fire those already in the force who are racist.

Now you are talking about strategy and campaign - against a system that does not respond, and has not responded in incident after incident, in a country with the US history of racial discrimination.

It takes an organisation and political nous that will not bring results quickly, and even when such methods have been used took large amounts of violence repression and disorder, frequently this came from those entrusted with upholding the law.

You have crowds of white armed protesters forcing their way into city halls - but you don’t see much in the way of prosecutions and incarceration. I imagine if you are from a minority and your perception is one of repression then you look at the way white protesters are handled and conclude the law is not applied equally - thus the law belongs to whites.

What you do notice is that white folks make lots of noise, intimidate others and break the law - it all gets on tv and generates lots of publicity - seems to work for them - after all their poster boy is President and he advocates yet more violence.

Result is that your police recruitment policies are going to have huge issues in attracting minority staff

Are you including prosecuting each and every one of the police officers involved to the fullest extent of the law?

Because the expectation that this will not happen (which is encouraged by the fact that it doesn’t seem to be happening so far) is a significant part of what is fueling the protests.

I can’t find any fact based threads on the incident… just the pits.

I do realize that you can define the parameters of your debate any way you want to.

That’s what I’m getting at. Setting aside what mdcastle proposes for those protesting, the question still remains what protesting will accomplish. Letting off some steam? Sure, that might feel good in the short term, but it doesn’t change anything. Generating publicity? OK you have the publics ear. Now what? What is the end goal? Presumably it’s getting rid of racist treatment at the hands of the law.

The only other option I see to what I propose is to somehow make the racist officers stop being racist. That seems like it would be a much more difficult task than just firing them and replacing them with officers that aren’t racist.

I think you have to start by trying to build a change in perceptions - that complaints will be dealt with professionally and independently and thoroughly.

Like any institution, police will always close ranks to protect their own - that’s isn’t direct racism of itself although it can certainly be a product of it - however if you feel you have been treated unfairly on the basis of race its not much of a stretch to think it is, which is why perceptions need to be addressed.

If you want to be a bit more conspiracy theorist you could say that letting off steam is actually better for white supremacy than making meaningful changes and dealing with lack of equality - it would have the tendency of maintaining white power - so makes sense to let minorities kick off every so often than offer them a chance of real power.

Yes. That’s why we have due process and the criminal justice system instead of vigilante mob rule in this country. You’re not entitled to a free TV set because you don’t have the patience for a Grand Jury investigation.

Justice, in every event, needs to be served. For the officers, they need to be prosecuted, and then fired with cause. (in every event that occurs)

The giant problem with this is that currently, there have been lots of times where the general populace sees something, calls it racist and demands action, only for it to be found that they didn’t do something so egregious to be fired or prosecuted for.

My solution, the big blue shield needs to end. It looks bad on all law enforcement to be found protecting folks who don’t deserve their protection. Law enforcement needs to be much much better at policing themselves. If/when police are found to be violating protocols, used force they didn’t need to or any racist motivation (proven), then they not only need to ber terminated, they need to be prosecuted and serve time.

Public employee unions should be banned. They are the ones who have negotiated the rules that make it hard to get rid of bad cops.

Isn’t that a bit like saying, police departments should be disbanded. They’re also the ones who negotiated the rules not to mention hiring the policemen who were bad cops.

Funny thing: 18 complaints had previously been made against Derek Chauvin, the policeman who killed George Floyd, and he was involved in killing one other person while on the job prior to the current case. 16 of those complaints resulted in nothing, while the other 2 results in sternly worded letters. The previously killing did not lead to criminal charges, either. And in that case, would you guess who was responsible for not prosecuting him? A county Prosecutor by the name of Amy Klobuchar. She instead referred that case, and all others like it involving police, to grand juries which generally chose not to do much.

Want to get rid of bad cops? Get rid of the unions and get rid of the Democratic politicians who take money from the unions and then protect the bad guys.

He’s been arrested and charged with Murder in the 3rd degree and with manslaughter.

Police are merely reflections of the society they serve. A symptom of the underlying culture.

Get rid of the underlying culture union! Am I right? The solution to every problem is banning unions!

CMC fnord!

IANAL but how does the grand jury thing work? Wikipedia says,

So what’s the logical conclusion? Maybe that the grand jury felt that there wasn’t much evidence to go on? Or maybe that there was good evidence but that a trial wasn’t likely to result in anything, so why waste taxpayer money? Was Klobuchar passing because it wasn’t winnable? Or would it be politically damaging to her because she would be seen as soft on crime? Or are the police big on backing her campaigns and she didn’t want to offend a sponsor/donor?

Again, IANAL and I don’t know how to interpret it. Maybe there’s not a simple answer.

Being a racist, even posting a racist joke or tweet will get you suspended or fired in most modern police depts.

However, i disagree with your *"not up for debate and taken as a given for this thread.

  1. The underlying assumption that George Floyd was murdered by a racist police officer. "*

I dont think that officer was racist. He clearly has a anger management issue, based upon complaints filed against him.

Outright racists dont last long as cops.