I’m not being ridiculous. I’m being consistent.
I read thru your comments/back-and-forth on this thread with the other FReeper. You and I share many thoughts and assumptions in this saga - without repeating them please check out https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4240046/posts?page=45#45.
We disagree on this point. Let me explain.
The rights of the accused are pretty important in the overall scheme of things. The poles have shifted over the past 50 years to a certain extent. It’s the left today that is condemning the Trump supporters for simply exercising free speech, and wanting to lock them up. A half a century ago, the right was willing to look past such “nonsense” in general because law and order was a greater ideal, and those radicals were up to no good.
There are baselines that underpin events and situations. There are many baselines spanning Babbit and Floyd. They were both in violation of the law, and were uncooperative. They both had a sketchy past (Floyd’s was more sketchy, but Babbit was hardly a saint). Neither of them deserved to be killed.
“The primary cause of death in most cases where the perp is fighting/resisting detainment or arrest is the perp… No resisting, no problem.”
But if “Floyd killed himself by resisting arrest AND having a boat load of drugs in him at the time”, then Babbit is equally culpable of killing herself sans the drugs.
Or, they’re both not guilty.
This is among many dimensions where the jar-shakers have a field day and why the ants attack each other.