OT Derek Chauvin, 45, is found guilty on ALL three charges

Says here they can restrict their movement. (That seems kinda vague., no?)
https://www.stowelawfirmnc.com/deta...tween detainment,you committed an illegal act.

I have also said i think this needs an overhaul. We should be able to ask for id and confirm the person i pointed out as a murderer is indeed right or wrong.
Just my opinion.

 

If you read the link or many many topics on this you would know its far from clear. But then you must know better than college professors debating Franklins meaning. How you find it clear, but most professionals do not, is telling that you only want to believe what you want to believe?

you dismiss ride alongs as education, you dismiss a link indicating that many professionals believe the quote is misleading.

 

You make a lot of assumptions. Your link required a subscription, so I didn't read it.

Anyway, guess we'll just agree to disagree.

 

Mistake? Kneeling on a person's chest for nine minutes while they gasp they can't breathe? Turnover at the end of a basketball game is a mistake. What Chauvin did was no mistake.

 

What assumptions? did you not dismiss ride alongs as not being additional education that couple be valuable in understanding the job requirements and situations the job puts an officer in? you literally said you don't care. If i'm misunderstanding you then please clarify.

Anyhow, the conflict of the Franklin quote is sooo out there everywhere, I find it hard to believe an educated individual like yourself isn't aware of the misinterpretation conflict. Its easily searchable. See below.



https://www.leyadelray.com/2020/05/...anklin-really-think-about-liberty-and-safety/

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance. Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor of Lawfare, tells NPR's Robert Siegel that it wasn't originally meant to mean what people think.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

Ben Franklin was innovative, but it's fair to say that he didn't imagine a future of cellphones and of all the privacy issues that come with them. Still, his words are often applied to such issues. Take our conversation last week about police technologies with Virginia State Delegate Richard Anderson.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED BROADCAST)

RICHARD ANDERSON: Very simply - and I'm paraphrasing here - but Ben Franklin essentially said at one point, those who would trade privacy for a bit of security deserve neither privacy nor security.

SIEGEL: Now, Anderson did say he was paraphrasing, but a few of you wrote in anyway saying, hey, that's not the quote. So we're going to clear things up right now. Benjamin Wittes, editor of the website Lawfare and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, joins us. Hi.

BENJAMIN WITTES: Hey.

SIEGEL: What's the exact quotation?

WITTES: The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

SIEGEL: And what was the context of this remark?

WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.

WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

SIEGEL: Well, as you've said, it's used often in the context of surveillance and technology. And it came up in my conversation with Mr. Anderson 'cause he's part of what's called the Ben Franklin Privacy Caucus in the Virginia legislature. What do you make of the use of this quotation as a motto for something that really wasn't the sentiment Franklin had in mind?

WITTES: You know, there are all of these quotations. Think of kill all the lawyers - right? - from Shakespeare. Nobody really remembers what the characters in question were saying at that time. And maybe it doesn't matter so much what Franklin was actually trying to say because the quotation means so much to us in terms of the tension between government power and individual liberties. But I do think it is worth remembering what he was actually trying to say because the actual context is much more sensitive to the problems of real governance than the flip quotation's use is, often. And Franklin was dealing with a genuine security emergency. There were raids on these frontier towns. And he regarded the ability of a community to defend itself as the essential liberty that it would be contemptible to trade. So I don't really have a problem with people misusing the quotation, but I also think it's worth remembering what it was really about.

SIEGEL: Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution. Thank you very much.

WITTES: Thank you.

SIEGEL: And Virginia State Delegate Richard Anderson also received a couple of emails about his Ben Franklin Privacy Caucus, and he says he's going back to its original name, the Ben Franklin Liberty Caucus.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

https://www.hoover.org/research/what-benjamin-franklin-really-said

Here’s an interesting historical fact I have dug up in some research for an essay I am writing about the relationship between liberty and security: That famous quote by Benjamin Franklin that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” does not mean what it seems to say. Not at all.

I started looking into this quotation because I am writing a frontal attack on the idea that liberty and security exist in some kind of “balance” with one another–and the quotation is kind of iconic to the balance thesis. Indeed, Franklin’s are perhaps the most famous words ever written about the relationship. A version of them is engraved on the Statue of Liberty. They are quoted endlessly by those who assert that these two values coexist with one another in a precarious, ever-shifting state of balance that security concerns threaten ever to upset. Every student of American history knows them. And every lover of liberty has heard them and known that they speak to that great truth about the constitution of civilized government–that we empower governments to protect us in a devil’s bargain from which we will lose in the long run.


..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

https://www.netsurion.com/articles/what-did-ben-franklin-really-mean

In the aftermath of the disclosure of the NSA program called PRISM by Edward Snowden to a reporter at The Guardian, commentators have gone into overdrive and the most iconic quote is one attributed to Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”.

It was amazing that something said over 250 years ago would be so apropos. Conservatives favor an originalist interpretation of documents such as the US Constitution (see Federalist Society) and so it seemed possible that very similar concerns existed at that time.

Trying to get to the bottom of this quote, Ben Wittes of Brookings wrote that it does not mean what it seems to say.

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. The Assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family, which ruled Pennsylvania from afar, to raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The Penn family was willing to acknowledge the power of the Assembly to tax them. The Governor, being an appointee of the Penn family, kept vetoing the Assembly’s effort. The Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier–as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands.

Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense versus maintaining its right of self-governance. He was criticizing the Governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

The statement is typical of Franklin style and rhetoric which also includes “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” While the circumstances were quite different, it seems the general principle he was stating is indeed relevant to the Snowden case.

 

Okay. mistakes happen in health care. We don't sentence doctors to 20 years in prison. There have been instances where doctors are charged for manslaughter but its rare and the sentence is not 20 years.

Mistakes can be at different levels. I can make a mistake at work that costs us a 10 dollar loss. I can make a mistake that costs us a 500K project loss. They are all still mistakes. Do I believe Chauvin is negligent? hell yes. But do I think he intentionally killed Chauvin? no.


Abstract. Recent studies of medical errors have estimated errors may account for as many as 251,000 deaths annually in the United States (U.S)., making medical errors the third leading cause of death.


https://www.wilsonlaw.com/fatal-medical-errors/

Medical errors cause thousands of deaths every year in the United States. According to the Journal of Patient Safety, medical errors contribute to more than 400,000 deaths in the U.S. every year, and that estimate only takes hospital patients into account.

 

No it’s not. It’s not even relevant to the question asked.

 

Yes it is. Virtually every country with lower crime rates than the US have either better solutions to those problems or they are autocratic.

If they are not autocratic then their police generally have fewer powers than police in the US.

It is the only relevant conversation when discussing lower instance of small crime.

 

If doctors make malicious "mistakes" they are also sentenced to long jail terms.

 

No it’s not. The question was about a real time specific incident. Responding by promoting something that can’t be done for several years if not decades is not relevant.

 

There is no realistic "real time" solution that police can enact to reliably prevent crime immediately.

Certainly giving them powers to violate the rights of law abiding citizens is not an acceptable solution.

 

I disagree. If you have reliable and accurate information the police should be able to act to ensure the safety of the community.

 

Then what's the problem?

 

The problem is you said they cannot act.

 

Nobody is listening to me... I don't have that kind of control.
Why do we have so much crime if the police can solve this? Why aren't they solving it?

 

Yeah, it seems like that backs up my perspective. We shouldn't allow police to violate our rights in order to possibly catch a bad guy.

Don't allow government the right to walk all over you just to make yourself feel marginally safer.

 

What is your obsession with how you went on a ride along? I've been on one too. It hardly makes you an expert on Chauvin's intentions. Or on anything for that matter.

 

huh???

first, i didnt realize bringing something up twice in one day, for the first time, constitutes being obsessed?
Second, please show me where i said a ride along makes one an expert on anything?
Its simply another vantage point i personally think is valuable in determining what types of situations cops are put in at times.
Im of the opinion more information is better to make sound decisions regarding regulations of any kind.

Apparently thats in the minority….