George Floyd

Apparently all we have to do is board up all stores, keep all bars and restaurants closed and don't let people leave their houses from 8PM to 5AM and things greatly improve.

Here's a Daily Beast story about cops targeting healthcare workers:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/even-medical-workers-fighting-covid-say-cops-are-attacking-them-at-george-floyd-protests?ref=home

Well that would be a start...

Hi all. Long time reader, first time commenter...

From a NYC real estate standpoint, I understand the knee-jerk reaction to the tragic killing of Mr. Floyd and resulting protests has been that this will only further the desire of many to move out of cities such as NYC, work from home infinity, etc. While I get that rationale, I think there could actually be a silver lining.

The reaction from corporate America has been fairly swift and I'd argue it's only beginning. Companies in industries such as Finance and Tech have been quick to react by admitting they need to do more to foster diversity in their work forces while also serving the communities in which they operate. How in the world will these companies endeavor to do that with a network of people simply isolating themselves and working from home in their rich, white suburbs? If the companies' leaders are genuine in their willingness to foster change, they will need to have a significant presence in major US cities. So will the employees.

I live on the UWS and watched a pack of protesters walk right past my apartment last night. I'll admit to having some mixed feelings about the protests / riots over the past few days, but last night, watching the people march past in peace (though with an incredibly loud chant) while the police kept their respectful distance, I felt only a sense of pride. I'd call it 'flavor'. Gotta take the good with the bad of course, but you ain't gettin' that sitting in your backyard in Connecticut.

Just for some balance here are some police officers doing some good.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/us/police-protesters-together/index.html

This a must read from Obama. He can be fill the void in Black Leadership and people will listen.

https://medium.com/@BarackObama/how-to-make-this-moment-the-turning-point-for-real-change-9fa209806067

those so call diversity actions will only make things worse.

this is a systemic problem, and the guilt started since Native Americans era, the 1800's, and of course, the cold war era as well

Hopefully Chauvin's charges being upgraded to 2nd degree murder and charging the other coops in George Floyd murder will go a long way towards justice for George Floyd. Naturally, the policemen involved have a right to defend themselves and outcome will take time.

I am not too crazy about Obama. I saw Cornel West on TV the other night and he said that Obama failed the black people. When Obama was President he joked about the fact that there was no shovel ready jobs.
Even the woman in Central Park, Cooper was her name who threatened to call the police on the African American voted for Obama. He helped whites with their guilt.
Obama lives around the corner from Ivanka. He doesn’t want to go near a black neighborhood.

There is no other black leader up to the task. And I was no fan of Obama as our President. But I believe he will be very good at helping with the issue and has a standing with American people of all races. He dared to say something about "missing black xxxxxxx" but was shut down.

How do you foster diversity ? They do that in college admissions by discriminating against Asians and whites. At least with Harvard, you do that by stereotyping and literally lying about the personality traits of Asian applicants. I have no doubt many other colleges do the same.
When the gatekeeper starts ignoring race/ethnicity , that's when things get better. Its no surprise that it seems to be getting worse. The answer to racism and discrimination is not more of it. Whether that's affirmative action or some nebulous policy called "fostering diversity", you basically end up with a cure that just perpetuates the disease.

@300, it remains to be seen if he can be of help.
But otherwise I agree with you.

I think it may help,if Michelle would be Biden's VP pick. But I don't think she wants it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/salman-rushdie-ive-seen-dictators-rise-fall-beware-america/?utm_campaign=wp_opinions_pm&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_popns

Knewbie,

First task right now for state and local govts is preventing another George Floyd, Eric Garner (low level non violent crime arrests gone wrong) while protecting every one’s property and enforcing law and order.

Second will be to improve schools in poorer neighborhoods and get parents to be more involved. A tall order!! Hence time for Obama to show what he can get done especially in getting parents more involved - not an easy task but necessary). There is no other comparable black leader and he will have to stand up to people who want to perpetuate victim mentality and may be chop off his nuts.

Diversity in admissions and hiring is a much bigger debate and I agree with you.

@knewbie - I could not help but note that your comment about college admissions is notably missing any mention of the fact that Jews faced discrimination in Harvard admissions (numbers were limited) long before Asians and other whites did, yet Jews favored affirmative action nonetheless. I suspect you don’t have a firm grasp on the history, but since you chided streetsmart for what you viewed as a misplaced comment on Tiananmen Square, I thought you’d want to know.

I think that's a very broad statement to say Jews favored affirmative action, that's quite a stereotype in its own right ; )

Keith - Definitely too academic for this board, but this discussed this at length in most Constitutional Law classes. Many amicus briefs have been written over the years by the Big Three with lots of nuances. Half my family is Jewish; I have converted; it is not a controversial statement in my family or among the Jewish community I know, but your point about Jews not being a monolith is well taken.

And my personal opinion, controversial though it may be, is those I personally know who believe they were adversely affected by affirmative action are people who were born on third base and bitter that with all their advantages, they could not make it to home plate. Whether one goes to Harvard or their state university is not determinative for truly talented individuals.

How does below reconcile with the need for affirmative action in top schools?
“Whether one goes to Harvard or their state university is not determinative for truly talented individuals.”

Going to a top school has significantly greater advantage for someone who has been disadvantaged than it does for a kid coming out of Exeter. I am sure you know this and are just being cheeky.

Well, first they discriminated against the bright Jews , and now there’re doing it against bright Asian Americans. And they will ruin NY’s top competitive high schools if DeBlasio has his way.

I wasn’t but I will leave it there except what happens to the middle class Asian and Jewish kids who will get squeezed out.

A disproportionate number of white civil rights activists were Jewish according to many historians.

Nevertheless there was a lot of friction between blacks and Jews

I remember that friction was expressed by a young black women who wrote the following words a long time ago: “in the shadow of a black stands a Jew”, meaning she said that if blacks were not in this country the Jews would be at the bottom.

Time will tell, but for those adversely affected, their back up school is usually sufficient. Honestly, do you personally know anyone whose life was affected by being denied a spot? I know people who were denied spots whose lives were overall unaffected. Meanwhile, I have met those who were given spots as a result of affirmative action for whom it was completely transformative.

MCR, What about a black kid who went to Exeter on scholarship? No admission to Top college. Basically you can use affirmative action benefit only once?

Now that is an excellent question. There is a great play out (or at least was before corona) entitled “Admissions” that tackles these tougher questions. People at my prep school were annoyed that one of the Harvard admittees was an African Amercan who was the son of physicians. My nephew is annoyed at a similar admittance from his school (everyone in our family just told him to get over it because nobody has sympathy for anyone who ends up in the program that was his second choice). I don’t understand those admissions, but I also don’t have all the facts. Those from my prep school who felt aggrieved definitely landed on their feet and were unaffected in the greater scheme. Similarly, my nephew is going to be fine.

I think the real crime of university admissions is legacy preference. Any applicant who asks me for a recommendation letter to college gets the litmus test question: “How do you feel about affirmative action?” If they are against it while asking me use my influence with any school in their favor, no rec letter for them.

MCR, that is a terrible defense for affirmative action..."it wont matter that much or it could be a good thing". No one should have their race or ethnicity used against them. If luck or whatever happens in life brings me to a better place or not , it is not something that should be determined by a racist policy. Reminds me of my friend who in defending AA said .."why even go to that school, you don't need it". Its like me going into a store and being charged more for the same product and then complaining, to which the defense is "well you don't want that anyway".

I work with Asian high school kids in lower Manhatten. Public high schools, not Exeter. Most are first gen. Their parents are waiters, caretakers for the elderly, cashiers. They have as much right as any other race /ethnicity to be treated fairly. What happened to Jews at Harvard and other schools in the 1900's is well known among these Asian parents who live and die with their childs educational success. Especially now with the additional exposure and lawsuits in the past years.

I actually cant follow your logic on why you bring that up. Are you saying because some Jews faced disgusting racism in admissions, they in spite of their experience still support that same behavior toward Asians ? Again, not a great defense of affirmative action.

Let me add: I would be supportive of some adjustment based on parents education level and income/assets which are reflective of the resources available to the child to perform. But only some formulaic adjustment (say max 100 points bump in SAT) as otherwise they can not keep up with the other kids and drag down the education level. Race should pay zero factor. And legacy seat should be auctioned to the highest bidder with some minimum cut off for achievement (say max 100 points SAT bump).

@knewbie - I respect your perspective and opinion but do believe race and ethnicity should be a factor in college admissions.

All - Apologies for engaging in such political discussion on Streeteasy. I am passionate in my belief that we are far from a post-racial world because I was raised in a country club environment where white supremacy tropes abounded (and still do). Despite being educated at top schools, I viewed many beliefs that now fill me with the greatest of shame as truth. My own prior lack of self-awareness and unabashed racism clouds all of my discussions, so I am just going to bow out.

MTC, I have twin nephews with 4.0s , one for medical, one for law.
Way at the top of their classes but too white and jewish.
One has to go to medical school on an island out of the country and the other with a LSAT of 172 couldnt get a nudge off the pergatory waiting list for Columbia or his alma mater, NYU.
All the while reading posts from prospective minority students on forums about their 140 LSATs and making it into Columbia.

I grew up in Queens, saw a lot of things, heard alot of things.
I was for affirmative action in the 80s. It was so necessary.
Today? Really?
If a minority made it to the top in the 80s,90s, you thought, " Wow he/she must be a great/bright doctor, or lawyer, or banker." This generation can one really assume the same? Might a prospective client/patient wonder, "Hmm this person went to ivy league but were they operating at a, gee, how do I say this without being called a racist or something, a 140 LSAT level as opposed to a 160?
Maybe an old tool to combat racism may be outdated?
Possibly will cause new forms of racism by clients/patients seeking out non minority lawyer/doctors?

An aside on the University specific issue, there are additional problems.
One glaring is that there are same amount of ivy league schools today as there were 30 years ago but twice as many kids.

I find in todays "white guilt" era, many white people are ashamed of their own personal prejudices, whether past or present, feel the need to recompense, with no regard for other "white" people's situations.
THe only thing they hate more than themselves is white people who dont have or display guilt, assuming that they are equally guilty no matter what and have no empathy.

truth, Well said. I am not white but get surprised by white guilt which is mostly prevalent in rich democrats - I do respect their good intent. But forgotten is middle class whites struggle like every one else. George Floyd is not about affirmative action based on race but against using excessive force for low level crimes on blacks. That needs to fixed. I do not think people will complain if a gun wielding and threatening black man was shot by police after appropriate warnings.

And kudos to MCR about being honest.

I acknowledge the validity of the posts above. Redneck white racists don’t trigger me; immigrant racists don’t trigger me (three of my best friends from school are first gen immigrants from asia - two from China and one from South Korea - each of whom support Trump and openly own their own racism). What triggers me are rich white racists of extreme privilege.

On a lighter note, some fun reverse racism: two of my three first gen asian american school friends admitted to me after we got to know each other that they were shocked at how smart they found me. They had stereotyped me as a legacy admission who was just going to inure to their benefit by lowering the curve. I have received similar reactions more than I care to count in the Jewish community. Sometimes I miss being entirely among my historic tribe, where nobody prejudged my intelligence level.

300, I agree, kudos to MCR.

And yes the George Floyd case is about some serious issues.

A combination of a distinct prejudice against black men and the "blue wall of silence."
Now the prejudice is not committed just by white cops, but by every minority and gender of police and the blue wall of silence, much like brothers in war, having each other's backs no matter what.

But there is a third thing that nobody likes to talk about, and is always the fuel to the fire.
Its also whats missing from 95% of the videos we are bombarded with on facebook and youtube ( if I may go vulgar here) as these videos always show just C-shot and not the foreplay.
Attitude and non compliance in the exchange with the cop ends up leading to the disaster.
Ive been treated well by police and Ive been beaten by police.
I was once handcuffed to a tree during a regular stop while the cop fished through my car.
Ive been treated well by police and Ive been beaten by police.
I was beaten due to my attitude, not because of my skin color which is quite pale.
When dealing with a cop, especially if the cop is having a bad day, its all about submission.
When you let your ego get away with you, . Yes you have rights , but the street or the road is not the courthouse where your pleading your case.

Getting back to the first two things, 1) prejudice against black men is rooted in a lot of things, one of which , frequency of description of the committer of small crime plays a substantial role. This something not easily talked about and Im not gonna start.

2) Blue wall of silence.
This has to change.
Every precinct has one cop that has no business being cop, either anymore , or never should have. Unfortunately for police, and I get the reluctance, anyone can have a bad day but your blue wall of silence now makes it necessary to bodycam everything.

BTW , I think HBO's The Wire should be required viewing in school. Season 4 and 5 in particular. (for the dickensian aspect ;) )

@truthskr - I think Richard Price’s 1992 novel “Clockers” would be even better for high school American Lit. If you liked The Wire (particularly the Dickensian aspect of the middle season), you will really appreciate Clockers and understand why Brian Simon brought Richard Price in to consult on The Wire.

Wait, what? How did we go from "the country seems to be having a transformative moment as we start to agree it's not okay for agents of the state to murder people" to "what happens to those unfortunate kids who don't get into Harvard?"

Relax Ali
The thread got sidetracked as most threads do and then course corrected.

Everyone is so hypersensitive.
I cant wait for the asteroid to hit, we all deserve it.
How's that for self loathing guilt! LOL

MCR
I liked Clockers, didnt love it.
I find a lot of in the hood movies like organized crime movies frequently corny.
The Wire nailed so many things. Season 4 with the kids was heartbreaking.

Apologies, you meant the book!

Front Porch, uh no AA is a policy for resources and employment. If it was only Harvard, not many would or should care. But if we want to talk about systematic/institutional legalized racist policies, then AA is it. The deflection which many go with..."oh its something you don't want, don't need , its elite" is really just that. If you want to really change hearts and minds/society, the answer should never be a deflection. Next time some person is discriminated against at a major company like Google, we can go with the "oh that unfortunate kid who missed a job at Google" vs why did that happen.

On the looting front, feels pretty safe outside. De Blasio finally woke up and police is acting to enforce law and order.

>> How did we go from "the country seems to be having a transformative moment as we start to agree it's not okay for agents of the state to murder people" to "what happens to those unfortunate kids who don't get into Harvard?"

Because they think what’s going on is about them, otherwise they cannot relate. They equate what goes on in the lives of those in these communities they have no clue about with their own grievances. My suggestion is that everybody find somebody they respect from these communities, listen more, and talk less.

Well said ionada. The perspectives offered by most on the SE forums on this topic lack empathy and are out of touch. I say this as someone who is living with my family amidst all protests and looting downtown.

Over the years I listened quite a bit to what my home care nurse had to say and some of the things she told me would make your hair curl. Anyway, there's this -
https://therealdeal.com/2020/06/04/security-professionals-report-uptick-in-demand-after-looting/

Seems to me SAT is going out of style. Maybe each college/uni should devise their own testing system to figure out which students they select might need additional help getting a degree. Plus has anyone else heard about something like Harvard Lite where legacy kids that aren't so bright get easier courses so they get the same degree as everyone else but actually just coast through required curriculum?

@Nada - The problem with a large swath of the population that I grew up with is that they literally don’t know any people of color. Hard to believe in this day and age, but the ignorance that stems from not having a human they care about explain what they experience every day goes a long way towards explaining the heartbreaking state of the country today. But for programs fostering diversity (including an international student work exchange program), I could have easily lived my entire life in this country in blissful, privileged ignorance and sadly that is how a disturbing number of people I grew up with continue to live. In other words, for many, it is not so easy to find someone to even try to listen to. With that said, I remain at a loss as to how to get through to anyone on this board who doesn’t understand how an Ivy League-educated African American attorney might be filled with anger. How can you live and work in an urban area and not have a single African American friend or colleague who has not gotten through to you?

@stache - Anyone can coast through any of the elite schools with a light curriculum. Anybody who is relying on their degree to get them a job won’t do that because an interviewer in a competitive profession sees right through a transcript that is filled with classes like “Rocks for Jocks” or “Physics for Poets.”

Mcr,

Filled with anger is different from restoring to violence as in Molotov cocktail throwing. This type of violence is an insult to African-American community who has peacefully protested (Looters are just criminals who largely didn’t show a tendency to kill). And your comment is condescending as it suggests that you think less of POC’s ability to deal with their anger.

“With that said, I remain at a loss as to how to get through to anyone on this board who doesn’t understand how an Ivy League-educated African American attorney might be filled with anger.”

@300_mercer- I could see myself being so angry that I resorted to violence. That doesn’t make it right, and I am not excusing it in anybody, including myself, but I absolutely understand it.

Watch the Trevor Noah video; read the Benjamin Studebaker essay “Hate the Rioting but Love the Rioters.” I feel like we are talking past each other. Understanding does not equal condoning. One can condemn while also understanding. If you condemn without understanding how anyone could be do angry, while being so angry yourself that you want the military brought in and you don’t see any inconsistency in your own thought process (military being used for domestic law enforcement is illegal), then I give up. I know I should have given up already.

And for the record, Streetsmart’s comparison of what happened in Lafayette Park outside the White House as being analogous to Tiananmen Square is apt, which anybody who understands US history and laws knows. I would posit that anybody who cannot see the parallels needs to study a bit more.

And as for those who support diversity programs despite the fact that they may be personally adversely affected (Asian, Jewish, other Whites), such people have made a value judgment that there is something larger than themselves at stake and they believe such programs “work” more than they don’t work. Reasonable minds have disagreed about this from the get go and always will; there is no way to measure which side is “right.” Sadly, as with so much human conflict, violence may end up determining which system prevails, and I feel like this
country is precariously close to that point.

And I am sure you know 1992 LA riots and Military involvement and do not like being called out like below. Trump got De Blasio and Cuomo to enforce the law by getting NYPD to act against looters.

"And your comment is condescending as it suggests that you think less of POC’s ability to deal with their anger."

@300_mercer - Which part of “I could see myself resorting to violence” was not clear to you? Honestly, I can feel you trying to restrain yourself from ad hominem attacks (you were not entirely successful in the other thread). You are so angry that you are struggling to refrain from behavior that you would not condone in your children. I get it. We are all human.

And I am genuinely curious as to what your point is about the 1992 LA riots? I mostly understand where you are coming from, even if I disagree. You seem to feel “laws be damned when my property is at stake - call in the military!” I get it, but that does not make it legal or “right.”

I am guessing that any 1992 infraction you were trying to say that Clinton did it too? For the umpteenth time, this is not a partisan issue. Stop trying to say “even Dems agree with me!” I don’t care what party you call ideological home; just be consistent about fidelity to “the law” if that is what you really care about. Looting is wrong; calling in the miltary to stop looting is wrong; end of story.

Key distinguishing factor re 1992 deployment of military force: California governor affirmatively requested federal assistance consistent with the Insurrection Act. Again, all I ask is consistency. If you care about the law, then don’t affirmatively call for breaking it. Don’t get mad at one group for breaking the law and then advocate breaking it yourself. I can understand both civil and uncivil disobedience and while I will always respect the law as the governing line, that doesn’t mean I am never going to understand someone’s disregard of it.

Also doesn’t mean I couldn’t see myself on the wrong side of it. I hope I am never so angry as to resort to violence or breaking the law, but I have never been tested the way I see others being testing day in and day out. I live a absurd life completely physically and materially insulated from everything that is going on and I am incredibly angry. I can only imagine how angry I’d be if any of this affected life day in and day out.

1956 Amendment. Naturally there will be a long debate and disagreement with that including his own defense secretary. And Trump only threatened to invoke didn’t actually invoke yet - I completely agree that he has a nasty choice of words (dominate being one) in this time of crisis - but it got De Blasio and Cuomo to act.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/06/03/insurrection-act-trump-history/%3foutputType=amp

1956 Amendment would not support President’s sending in military to prevent destruction of local property against Governor’s wishes. No legal scholar of any repute would argue otherwise. Trump’s insistence that he has this authority embodies the grave danger our rule of law is in. I know it is virtually impossible for a lay person to understand, but the legal gymnastics people I used to count as principled friends are going to to enable this President is nothing short of terrifying. None of them can even look me in the eye. They know it; I know it. At the end of the day, all they care about is maintaining their personal money and power; the masses be damned. They are the ones I am really angry at because I was the chump who defended all of their participating in the Ken Starr investigation because I actually thought that it was a matter of principle to them. We were at each other’s weddings, childrens’ christening, regular dinners, and now, I can’t stand the sight of
any of them. And most of America has no idea that it is getting played.

Too inside the beltway, but I am perversely enjoying watching a lot of the infighting. There is a line that some of them won’t cross, but they’ve already crossed so many, that they are forever tied together by their unclean hands. Trump is not one of them; he is just their tool, and the one thing I like about Trump is that he won’t tolerate any of their trying to publicly distance themselves from him while privately enabling him. Seeing him humiliate Bill Barr on a regular basis is the only silver lining in the news cycle.

MCR,
I'll correct you slightly: you couldn't slide through Cornell Engineering School with all gut courses. (Waiting for someone to say "that's not an elite school")

Charlie had this great routine about white women clutching their handbags.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/arts/catch-charlie-barnett-and-other-rising-stand-up-stars-who-never-hit-the-top.html

@300_mercer - Agree on Cornell Engineering, and for that matter likely a number of other elite schools (e.g., MIT, Cal Poly)

@30yrs - Read the article and while it gave me the background on Charlie Barnett, it did not detail the routine. Please elaborate. I live for the Comedy Cellar when we are in NY (we only get in about 25% of the time we try), and I also cannot get enough of the “white women” humor, all of which hits incredibly close to home. I never kid myself for a moment that I would not resort to all sorts of objectionable behavior if challenged; it js easy to be gracious and benevolent when everything is going your way. But look at how that Obama-loving Central Park Ramble woman cracked at nothing, and don’t get me started on Brett Kavanaugh. The only thing more fragile than white women of privilege are white men of privilege.

My husband was just looking over my shoulder and told me not to confuse Cal Tech with Cal Poly. I am not informed enough to know the difference, but he said something along the lines of FFS, Devin Nunes graduated from Cal Poly.

Unfortunately it's out of bounds enough that the only video I could find of Charlie cut 95% of it out.
https://youtu.be/scipjlqqrDg

In SAT format:

CalTech is to Call Poly as MIT is to __________.

A) Worcester Polytechnic Institute
B) Mister Rogers neighborhood
C) Texas A&M
D) All of the above.

@30 ty, good memory's of Charlie!
I did not know he passed..

I had no idea about where Charlie Barnett got his start. I just remember watching Terms of Enrollment more times than is reasonable.

I had no idea about where Charlie Barnett got his start. I just remember watching Terms of Enrollment more times than is reasonable.

>> The problem with a large swath of the population that I grew up with is that they literally don’t know any people of color.

That’s OK. Just find a leader / businessperson / entertainer / athlete / etc. that you respect and listen to what they say. Go with Obama. If you don’t respect Obama, go with Trevor Noah. If you don’t respect Trevor Noah, go with Oprah. If you don’t respect Oprah, go with LeBron. If you go down the full list and cannot find a single such person you respect, then acknowledge what you are and stop pretending I guess.

>> And Trump only threatened to invoke didn’t actually invoke yet - I completely agree that he has a nasty choice of words (dominate being one) in this time of crisis - but it got De Blasio and Cuomo to act.

It’s not just a choice of nasty words, it has led to unlawful actions. E.g., clearing out of peaceful protesters pre-curfew in violation of the 1st amendment. We have a racist president, and 40-ish percent of the country says “I don’t condone it, but I don’t care”. Freedom of religion is great, but f-you I don’t care about rule of law when it comes to a Muslim ban. Voting rights are great, but f-you I don’t care when (as one example) Florida Republicans try to establish an unconstitutional poll tax to overturn an overwhelming public vote directly reinstating felons’ right to vote.

Great, then you should understand what the rioters were telling you. “F-you when it comes to rule of law and your property rights. We only threatened your perception of safety, not your actual safety - and we’ll be the first to tell you it was a nasty way to send you a message in a time of crisis - but it got you to act by paying more attention to the issue.”

multi, I was taking about less rigorous core courses, specifically designed for lackluster legacy students. The difference with R King riots, while they had a large swath, they were contained to one section/area. LA Times showed a map. The riots went as far north as Sunset Blvd, and not very far west into Hollywood etc. This time here in NYC we had riots in separate sections all over town. This could be from different geography and our water barriers.

How awesome is our new street in DC and NFL apology. Well alrighty then.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/06/soho-rioters-hurt-the-working-class-not-rich-ceos-and-celebs/

300_mercer - I cannot escape the sense that you care a whole lot more about the looting in your backyard than you do about the death of George Floyd.

I care about both and support peaceful protests. Looters have nothing to do with George Floyd. These are criminal gangs.

And I firmly believe looting and rioting is detrimental to the cause of addressing treatment of black men by police. I do believe that they are many good people in police - perhaps mostly good people - but we continue to have George Floyd and Eric Garner.

And perhaps Kamala Harris (instead of my suggestion of Obama) will be the person who will help address the issue as VP for Joe Biden.

And I like what Obama says below. I posted this link before but people started to focus on affirmative action.

https://medium.com/@BarackObama/how-to-make-this-moment-the-turning-point-for-real-change-9fa209806067

>> I care about both and support peaceful protests. Looters have nothing to do with George Floyd. These are criminal gangs.

Looters & rioters are by definition criminals. Probably not all criminal gangs — e.g., I am guessing rioting lawyers engaging in criminal behavior didn’t have day jobs in crime. George Floyd had allegedly engaged in petty criminal behavior (that’s why the police was there), and reliable news sources (e.g., NPR) say he had a criminal past (5 years for armed robbery).

Floyd died at the hands of agents of the state engaging in unlawful use of force in handling a reported crime rather than dealing with it lawfully. A much more powerful agent of the state (Trump) wants to engage in an unlawful deployment of force to quell crime rather than having it dealt with via lawful means (which includes lawful requests for deployment of that very force).

So we have four parties each with their own unlawful actions. I condemn all of the unlawful behavior. You condone one. Why?

First let me say that George Floyd’s criminal history has nothing to do with his murder as he had served his time and only reported to be committing a petty crime and was no threat to the police after being handcuffed.

On Trump calling Military, in the other thread, I mention that the threat is likely empty and got Cuomo and De Blasio to act to prevent rioting. On the legality the jury is still out and it may well be legal. See below from Noah Feldman. There is clearly opposition to Trump actually doing it from his defense secretary and from Military. His overall handing of the matter is very poor and divisive.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesleader.com/opinion/op-ed/786200/noah-feldman-can-trump-send-in-the-military-probably-yes/amp

———

This last part of the Insurrection Act also says that the law could go into effect if violence “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” Here’s where Trump might have a case. It’s not totally absurd to say that the looting is obstructing execution of federal law to the extent that local police and the National Guard can’t successfully stop violence on the streets.

The upshot is that this last bit of the Insurrection Act could potentially allow Trump to bring out federal troops even without the request or consent of state governments. If he does, and his action is challenged in court, a judge might be inclined to defer to the president’s judgment — since the act as written gives the president the authority to take “such measures as he considers necessary.”

And on Trump’s overall handing, all one has to do is watch the strange comment he made while talking about jobs. He will be voted out in my opinion if Biden picks the right VP candidate (Kamala or Michelle Obama) and keeps the message to helping address state and local governments policing issues, improving schools in low income neighborhoods, and economy.

@300_mercer: Just NO on the Insurrection Act. President can’t call in the military against state’s wishes to deal with anything that is clearly within the state’s jurisdiction (as opposed to federal law or the Consitution). The only way your case works is if looters were targeting one group of citizens based on race and there is zero evidence of that. This is where we are on the most dangerous of territories. There is no way a lay person can understand this and the fact that FedSoc has taken over the bench leaves the country in a world of hurt. I know these people; I was one of them. You are what is known by those with agendas who manipulate the less informed call a useful idiot. I am not saying that you are an idiot; on the contrary, I think you are very smart and analytical. I give up trying to get through to you, but I had to give you my personal opinion of the role you are playing perfectly in a game you can’t begin to understand.

After methodically knocking down all the possibilities, Feldman goes to: if violence “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” No such thing is happening, but Feldman says that perhaps a judge would be sympathetic the act as written gives the president the authority to take “such measures as he considers necessary.”

Perhaps a jury will find the cops’ use of force lawful, we just don’t know at this point do we? Perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to condemn their actions. Nor the alleged rioters: maybe the words & actions you found threatening were protected under free speech and therefore lawful. You best let it all be settled in court before you condemn or condone no matter how flimsy the case may be.

Is Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor, completely wrong or does it suggest that the issue is debatable? I am not a DC insider and not did I ever donate to any party or candidate.

300_mercer - Feldman chooses his words and structures his hypotheticals very carefully so that he is not telling other lawyers anything they don’t know, but is intentionally giving unsuspecting lay people such as yourself the thinnest of arguments to be used exactly as you are here. It is painful to watch, but you are playing the part for which you did not intentionally audition perfectly. It’s like a train wreck that I can’t turn away from, and it makes me that much angrier at my former besties.

And to answer your bigger question: No reputable legal scholar thinks the issue is debatable under the current fact pattern. When you put in a bunch of “if’s,” anything is debatable. Also, even if multiple judges were to say the President had this authority, the Supreme Court would have the final say, which is why the composition of the Court matters so much. The great irony is that the judicial restraint wing that had legitimate gripes with decisions like Roe v Wade had the moral high ground until they started engaging in rampant judicial activism themselves. In other words, they stood on the principle of judicial restraint and I respected them for it, until
the principle was inconvenient to their desired outcome, at which time their true colors were exposed. Again, all they care about is preserving their place at the top. I do not think history will look kindly on them; I believe what we are seeing is the last gasp of a desperate dying group.

Mcr, I have no desire to discuss politics and how judiciary may be biased with a DC insider. But I posted link to an opinion from a Harvard Law professor, who is not known for his right wing views, about legality of military action. You can disagree with that. Trump’s own defense secretary disagreed. But the empty threat (as I called it in the other thread) got De Blasio and Cuomo to act on law and order. I still see plywood going up in stores windows due to initial inaction by De Blasio and Cuomo. At this point of time, the policing is just fine. I attended the protest briefly in Washington Square Park yesterday myself and they were peaceful.

I was very informed by the truth that Malcolm X spoke, it was a bitter pill to swallow for a so-called progressive, liberal young white man.

https://tylerpaper.com/opinion/columnists/a-largely-ignored-basic-teaching-of-malcolm-x/article_e68d04ec-0df7-11e9-a563-f351b9c6856e.html

The reason you are so perfect for the role is that you believe everything you write and say with all of your heart. And I also suspect that you cannot even entertain the possibility that you might be racist. I am not saying you are; don’t put words in my mouth. I am just wondering if you have ever considered that you might be. Only you can know at the end of the day.

@keith - no comment. I am going to try really hard to just let this conversation carry on without me.

DeBlasio lifted curfew effective immediately (although wasn't it scheduled to end anyway?)
What happens now?

I think there is enough police presence now for the night curfew to be no longer needed. The reason the situation got out of control was due the fact that police were told to stand back initially and let the looting and police car burning go on. There may still be some issues but hopefully nothing rampant like bad elements burning police cars in front of police.

Mcr, Did you call Malcolm X racist? Or someone else who disagrees with you? You allude to your right wing association / acts and conversion to only you know. So please spare us your moralizing and political views.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zeal_of_the_convert

@300_mercer - You beat me to it. Totally agree that I fit that (and many other) stereotype.

Btw - In the interest of being an honest broker, Dems are not above manipulating lay people and are equally guilty in a number of areas. I am just bitter that the other team has the most reliable tool firmly in its arsenal, and even some who are serving as DJT’s henchman who used to say that they cared about civil rights have now been forced to admit that they only care about them when there is no personal cost to them. They’re like “ok, fair enough; he’s a racist but all of my work is geared towards restoring the financial stability of the United States and if I have to get in bed with a racist to do it , so be it.”

And I did not call anybody a racist, but I will say those who are most offended by the label in my personal experience are the most likely to come around. I have hope for you yet, not that I or anyone else reading this think you might be a racist. Just food for thought.

Also, for the record-I never engaged in any bad acts as a result of my earlier right wing ideology; just used to cast my vote differently and devote my energy towards unfettered free market. I am still somewhat fiscally conservative, but as between the crazies on the left these days and the crazies on the right, I casting my centrist vote left for the foreseeable future.