The guy had a complaints record longer than Floyd’s criminal record. Many accounts of abuse of force. He is an outlier among police in his precinct when it comes to complaints.
It is just guessing as to wither or not he intended to kill. He is guilty of man slaughter IMO. The guy likely would have been out of the force years ago if due diligence was done on his complaints.
… or, because he continued pinning a man’s neck to the ground with his knee for a minute or two after that man passed out and went limp.
Probably just because his headshot isn’t happy enough though.
Nope, that was homicide. Through deliberation or negligence. You got your man down, you don’t need to keep pinning him into the ground as he cries for his mamma. And then beyond, when clearly something has gone terribly wrong. Something is missing in your heart if you can keep your knee pressed into a man for that long while he is begging and pleading. Whatever state he was in, they weren’t in the kind of danger (not any from what I see) to warrant that treatment. Perhaps Chauvin didn’t set out to kill anyone. I think it’s likely that he was a pissed off bully who imagined he was teaching a scumbag a lesson for disobeying. And then, after realizing shit went south, kept up the charade of HAVING to hold Floyd down so bystanders might not catch on that Floyd had died while under his knee. “Gosh, he was still breathing when my knee came off. Must have died during transit.”
I can not imagine holding my knee on another man’s neck once he’s restrained as he frantically pleads and begs. Chauvin will end up exactly where he deserves to be. In prison. I don’t care about Floyd’s rap sheet or drug use. Mental episdoe or bad high, Chauvin doesn’t get to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Floyd wasn’t moving and stopped breathing, there was no reason to continue kneeling on his neck. I don’t see how you can defend that. It wasn’t an intentional murder, but it was extreme negligence at the very least.
But not as tall as a tree…since we’re talking about different things. How many criminal convictions did Floyd have? How many reprimands did Chauvin have?
Might be…we’ll have to wait and see, I guess.
He was already in custody. He wasn’t fleeing or resisting arrest. There was some reason they were on top of him. Maybe they were committing murder in broad daylight while being filmed.
Which is why I think it more likely that Chauvin was just being a prick, acting like he had to hold the man down, taking out his frustration because Floyd was panicking over getting in the back seat and defied his authority. Then at some point realized he had killed the man, but thinking on his feet in the moment, thought he needed to give the impression Floyd was alive. You tell me why he would continue to kneel on a man who has gone completely lifeless.
He’s restrained, stop pinning the neck and chest of a man having a panic attack. Yes, Floyd shouldn’t have committed crimes. Yes, he should have been straight and sober. Yes, he should’ve gotten in the back seat. No, he shouldn’t have had his neck pinned minute after excruciating minute while having a panic attack. The video is horrible to watch.
We’ll see. Personally, I anticipate more riots following trials. Floyd was saying that he couldn’t breathe, before he was face down on the ground.
That list contains anyone killed in and around protests or riots, including by normal criminal activity.
I do have to wonder about the hands up don’t shoot chant we often see during these recent demonstrations. This is supposedly from the Michael Brown shooting. But according to both local and federal (remember, during the Obama Admin) law enforcement this scenario (hands up/shot in back/etc.) doesn’t seem to be based on reality.
So, it really bothers me that the following protests and riots continue based off a this case, in which there was nearly universal agreement and condemnation (and in which officers face serious charges), but also informed by a seriously questionable case.
Why didn’t this one just end up as slam dunk with cops going to prison? Seriously. This was the case we all nearly agreed on. That felt like we were all united on, left or right. I swear I remember early on reading about Limbaugh expressing disgust at what had happened to Floyd. Yeah, I figured it was a slam dunk and we’d all condemn these men together and see that justice was served.
Bizarre how that turned out.
Biased people want to find reasons to paint the black guy as the bad guy, just like biased people want to find reasons to paint the cop as the bad guy. Give them enough time and they can perform enough mental gymnastics to form or hear an argument that suits their biases.
He wasn’t the bad guy; just a bad guy.
Or bringing up Trayvon Martin who wasn’t killed by a cop.
What is happening now is completely divorced from whatever the original intent of any protest may have been.
When nobody (at least that I have heard) can clearly define what the “end-game” is; what it would look like; and how exactly those Goals will be achieved by rioting and destroying property has me at a complete loss.
I agree with a much overused phrase often yelled through a bullhorn:
“…What DO you want?..”
Some vague and bogus reply like “Justice…!” tells me little or nothing about how you hope to achieve it by rioting and the destruction of property.
Or a white guy.
Meh, I’d consider myself a moderate. And at what point do extremists on either end of the spectrum represent the majority of a group? Unless I’m sorely mistaken, I can be in support of positive systemic change without being in favor of full-scale socialism and wealth redistribution. I hope they can happen independently of each other, because I was under the impression that BLM existed to call attention to unchecked issues of racially motivated police brutality and promote income equality across all demographics by funneling (at least a little bit of) police money (that is wasted instead of being used on further training for our abandoned cops) into low-income areas.
It seems like a good idea at face value - but I’m not sure if the BLM movement calls for hammer-and-sickle Communism so much as the extremists and people trying to promote their political agendas push that sort of thing. Protesters are very worried that white people instigating clashes with federal officers, among other things (like the protests being construed as a farce intended to promote a certain economic agenda) will take away from the original message of bringing light to issues involving police brutality.
Unless I’m totally wrong, in which case just let me know.
Is the news lying to me?
Unless things have changed, officials didn’t believe the man in the semi was targeting protestors. When you’re standing on a highway, you might want to factor in the stopping time of tanker trucks.
I remember the two that were killed late at night by the vehicle facing the wrong wrong…That was a black driver who very likely was trying to make his way past some barriers at around 2 am instead of detouring around. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest it was political.
I think the common thread, be they intentional strikes or not, is that people are standing in roadways trying to stop traffic. Now, might I just put this out there? It’s a radical bit of wisdom my own parents imparted to me. Don’t play in the roadway! Wth is is anyone doing out in the roadway attempting to stop strangers from making way? People want to complain about militaristic unmarked police frightening citizens? How about a black clad mob with NO law enforcement markings at all swarming a freeway while carrying shields, cudgels, clubs, and donning makeshift armor. Then there’s the visibility issues with time of day, rises, curves, and cell-phone usage.
Wearing “press” markings while illegally taking part in a riot, trespassing onto federal courthouse property and encouraging others to follow suit.
My gosh, I realize this is politics and they want to win, but aren’t there some things we should be in agreement on? Like not burning down property and attacking law enforcement?
(CNN)Democrats launched a full-scale assault against Attorney General William Barr at Tuesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, clashing with Barr repeatedly as the hearing jolted from topic to topic.
Here are the top takeaways from Barr’s first appearance before the Judiciary panel in his 17-month tenure as attorney general.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York and the panel’s Democrats did not offer Barr any niceties congressional witnesses typically receive. Democrats repeatedly cut off Barr’s responses, accused him of being wrong or lying and made clear they weren’t interested in the explanations he was offering. Barr wasn’t allowed extra time at the end of each lawmaker’s five minutes to respond to questions that witnesses typically receive – forcing Republicans to use their time to let Barr push back on the Democratic accusations.
Did a single Democrat condemn the nightly siege on a federal courthouse and praise the men defending it? Can anyone here provide me such a snippet? For that matter, any recent statements by Biden? Anyone?