23 Oct
4:00pm, 23 Oct 2024
6,774 posts
|
paulcook
larkim wrote: The anti-police rhetoric was able to be disseminated from the outset, whilst those inside the police presumably were well aware of the actual context. Had Kaba's background been know at the start I suspect there would have been less opportunity to create him as a "poster boy" of the issues they are highlighting. But the police were following the car, not the individual. When they killed him they didn't know who he was. Hence why the jury, and public didn't know the background, because neither did the police when the operation / individual chose it was an appropriate course or not to shoot him. |
23 Oct
8:24pm, 23 Oct 2024
22,292 posts
|
Chrisull
US remains on a knife edge BUT Harris still holds an edge in the three crucial rust belt states of PA, WI and MI. PA continues to look the strongest of the 3, but all of them are close, too close to be certain. She only needs those three for 270. But still you wouldn't want to win 270-268, given the Jan 6th history. In the other battleground NV the early voting is catastrophic for the dems, they're already well behind. The hope is mail in votes, on the days and indies help them (20% at least in the polls), so all is not lost, and also early voting doesn't always pan out the way it looks. NC is looking like a Trump state, which leaves AZ and GA, of which the latter remains the most hopeful. There is some Republican polls in the mix skewing the balance, PA was polled 31 times in the last few weeks, an 19 were Republican/right wing pollsters, so to remain ahead is a good sign there. And not all Republican pollsters are bad pollsters, but some most certainly are. But as we've all said all along it's horrendously close. In the Senate, in Texas Ted Cruz is now only ahead by a margin of error in the polls, although Trump is above him (so no hope for Texas). So if Harris can squeak the presidency, there's a chance she can still squeak the Senate as well. Florida seems to be swinging more pro Trump than last time. For grasping at straws signs of good news, interesting poll from Emerson - if you made up your mind who to vote for over a month ago, then its Trump 52 Harris 48. But if you made it less than a month ago it's Harris 56 Trump 44 (and that's only going to widen). For those thinking well most people knew how they'd vote, there's still 20% of voters in some states in that camp. So it still remains all to play for. |
23 Oct
8:34pm, 23 Oct 2024
17,974 posts
|
jda
Agree that his background wasn’t relevant to the case and wasn’t relevant to the police action as his identity wasn’t known at the time. OTOH a car that was very recently involved in an armed robbery, being driven aggressively and recklessly resisting a stop, seems like pretty strong grounds for very firm action. It’s not like these cases where police break in to someone’s house in the middle of the night and shoot everyone up without much warning or just brutalise someone showing no resistance as sometimes happens in the USA.
|
|
23 Oct
8:50pm, 23 Oct 2024
6,777 posts
|
paulcook
Cherry picking a 3-week trial into 3 sentences is never the wisest nor broadest outcome, but this seems to be the key parts. Blake, who was in a police car that blocked the Audi from the front, said he opened fire fearing Kaba would pull an officer under its wheels or run them over, as their suspect tried to escape “at any cost” after being blocked in. The jury agreed with the police. I, personally, don't find it particularly wise that the likes of some people are suggesting that the policeman should never have put on trial simply for doing his job. For me, they police by consent, and an investigation into any death is proper. Though we do have more than court system for that, I concede. The police have argued it puts morale lower and potentially crime-fighting worse. It's a fine balance definitely. But I do wholeheartedly support the idea of preventing the naming of police before any outcomes. I wouldn't want to be the policeman now even if he has been found not guilty. |
23 Oct
10:14pm, 23 Oct 2024
6,069 posts
|
Cheeky’s Dad
macca 53 wrote: Poll tax riots of 1990 is the last one I can remember… The (huge) protest against the Iraq war had no effect at all… Returning to an earlier topic, I’m not sure that’s true. Granted the effects were not immediate or directly cause and effect but I don’t think one can say that the Iraq war, and the public reaction to it, had no effect on foreign policy or the end of Blair’s premiership. You could also argue it was a contributing factor in the fall of the Labour government and everything that came since. Not a neat undeniable cause and effect I grant but when is life ever that simple |
23 Oct
10:35pm, 23 Oct 2024
19,391 posts
|
JamieKai *chameleon*
paulcook wrote: But I do wholeheartedly support the idea of preventing the naming of police before any outcomes. I wouldn't want to be the policeman now even if he has been found not guilty. I think the naming of most (any?) defendants should wait until conviction. Whilst a not guilty verdict doesn't mean they are innocent of the offence, mob justice says anyone accused is guilty and I wonder whether naming is helpful or necessary. That said, the non-naming of the Southport chap allowed for the rumour mill to spiral way out of control, so there's certainly nuance. |
|
23 Oct
10:47pm, 23 Oct 2024
17,975 posts
|
jda
Naming can help other victims to come out of the woodwork, which can be important in some cases.
|
|
23 Oct
10:55pm, 23 Oct 2024
6,780 posts
|
paulcook
Yes, I was going to say that I think that's the main argument I normally hear to keep the naming of defendants / charged, etc. I don't think it's always relevant in all cases though, this one would be one of them irrespective of protecting serving armed officers. Would likely need to be judged on a case-by-case basis by CPS if changes were made. Can't really see an ideal solution that would perfectly suit all parties.
|
|
23 Oct
10:57pm, 23 Oct 2024
19,393 posts
|
JamieKai *chameleon*
True, true. Pff, I'm usually so pro-prosecution, dunno why I'm simping for defence. Must be tired 
|
23 Oct
11:06pm, 23 Oct 2024
33,299 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
"For grasping at straws signs of good news, interesting poll from Emerson - if you made up your mind who to vote for over a month ago, then its Trump 52 Harris 48. But if you made it less than a month ago it's Harris 56 Trump 44 (and that's only going to widen). For those thinking well most people knew how they'd vote, there's still 20% of voters in some states in that camp. So it still remains all to play for." My estimation is based 25% on cherry-picking bits of data, 25% on the vibes of the campaign - Harris seems to have way more money, ground game and enthusiasm on her side - 25% on the thought that many Americans are just tired of his shit and want rid of him and 25% on the belief - correct or incorrect as it may be - that the number of Americans who see the threat significantly outnumbers those who don't. Not long to go now anyway. |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
