The police policy is that the safety of the officers, the other first responders and the crowd comes before the safety of the suspect. If Chauvin believed there was a danger to any of those, and the prosecution witness testified that an unconscious, restrained person can still present a risk, then he can continue to use force.
“Not guilty?!?! Fuck Patricia! Have you seen what is going on out there? They have surrounded the house of the last cop to kill a black person with 20ft high fencing and police are pepper spraying people to keep them out”
I think riots are happening whatever happens in this case.
Expert witnesses have said that what he did was not according to police policy.
On this one, I am not confident what will happen with the 2nd degree manslaughter charge. I don’t feel he will be convicted on the murder charge.
For the Brooklyn Center case, I am confident that there will be no conviction, and I don’t think it will even make it to court.
1 Like
Yep and each one has had to yield on cross examination that when you take into account the resisting arrest, history of the suspect, drug use and the hostile crowd that it was within policy.
And my understanding is that the defense experts testified to the opposite.
It was his actions that were making the crowd hostile. Those actions increased the chances of violence, not decreased them. I don’t see that fitting in with police policy.
Prosecution witness.testified tha policy says that police are to ignore crowds and continue to use force as is required in the situation. The alternative is that police make calls based on the crowds, doesn’t seem good
Sure, then it becomes a question of at what point is it negligence to not realize that floyd was no longer a risk, and did he willfully continue his negligent action. If it is deemed that it was negligence to continue so long and it would be unreasonable to not know that, that would fit the 2nd degree charge.
I’m not confident either way itn this one. Just discussing. I think the jury discussion will be interesting (wish I could be a fly in the wall).
1 Like
Seems like the crippled commie and his crew had their hands in most of the worst initiatives the federal government undertook in the 20th.
Thanks. Keep up the drive by posting.
1 Like
Been an interesting case so far. When I watch parts it seems both the defence and prosecution have done a better job of refuting the opposition case than making their own. It’s one of those classic cases of seeing one side of the argument and saying that guy makes a great argument until the next one goes and you think hmmmm also a great argument…
I think the biggest issue for the prosecution is they have been very flimsy on what actually killed Floyd which is not good where reasonable doubt is the standard.
Also interesting to see media on both sides leave out enormous and significant testimony (usually the cross examination)
Whatever the outcome,. whatever what truly happened, it feels it is unlikely justice will prevail and even less likely that any good will come from whatever ruling.
I’m not disagreeing with blacks being treated like shit or subjected to unfair treatment. I was asking @zecarlo a specific question based on a claim that he made, that politicians are the reason for the decaying communities like those in Minneapolis, Detroit, Chicago, Newark etc. If politicians are the reason for them, it must be due to laws enacted by them. Which ones is my question.
I’m fully aware of the history of the Democrat party and the terrible shitty laws they passed in both the North and the South after the civil war. However my premise was the communities we are talking about didn’t get to where they are from politicians and they can’t be fixed by politicians. It’s people taking personal responsibility for their own. Marry their girl, raise their kids, clean up your property and build up your community. More money and more cops won’t fix those problems. It’s actually making it worse. These are not just problems for one race, they effect everyone and until people are willing to get their heads out of their asses and take responsibility for their own lives it will get worse and spread.
Sorry for derail op
So black people were happy and productive with intact families and then looked at whites who were the same and suddenly decided to hell with this, let’s live in poverty.
And if you say that things were bad since since slavery ended then who is to blame if the conditions are related to a government sponsored institution?
Either things were shitty from the get go, blame slavery, or they were good for a certain amount of time after slavery ended, in which case the question is, did black people decide they wanted to live in crime infested ghettos or was that something which was imposed?
I think his point is, politicians have disincentivized many of those things…and I think the specifics are what you’re trying to get out of him. Because…well, you and I are woke to it.
2 Likes
They were put into a shitty situation. I think it is similar to the natives. If it were the other way around many of them would just think we were a sub optimal human group.
Sorry, replied to the wrong guy.
Same here. There’s already been a massive trial by media. It’s why I don’t even want to read about it now. I’m waiting for the verdict and the official record of the court case to form my opinions. I don’t care for the civil suit when it comes to this trial.
Shit, I remember even Saddam Hussein’s lawyer berating the media. When asked about
“mass killings” or something like that on national television, he countered with something like, “Can you tell me who he killed? Be specific. Give me names. Any name. Can you? This is a trial conducted in court of law, not a trial by media.” and the news anchor had nothing to say.
***Which doesn’t mean that I’m against discussing the case here and it’s potential ramifications on society, nor that I think Saddam wasn’t a fucking maniac who got what he deserved even without a court trial. If current military tech existed at that time, I’d have been happy if you just bombed the fucker.
I’m just using an extreme example to emphasize my point that everyone should have the right to a proper trial without prejudice if brought to court.
4 Likes
Again, not a black only issue. Marriage rates are way down across the board. Also, why do you assume poverty = criminal?
The Democrat party.
Incentivized sure, not imposed. People have responsibilities and choices to make.
He got to go out in about as manly a fashion as possible.
1 Like
Well, remember too differences in news coverage from here to Europe. I mean both in terms of overall saturation of the airwaves and also what gets reported. We are getting everything all the time here. And also we are getting a lot of the drama, where it probably is not making itself known in news coverage outside N America. Then you have the differences in perspective/experience with LEOs there vs here. Something dt79 and my acquaintances elsewhere have highlighted for me is the difference in news operation.
I don’t think murder is in the cards at this point, unless defense totally screws up. But manslaughter could be depending on how the rest of the court strategy plays out.
This is the only thing I am 100% confident in.
1 Like