Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Police State USA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post

    The folks on the TV didn't put much on his expert being paid. That's SOP I believe. These people don't work for free. If they do, that causes it's own problems. He didnt seem as credible as the other guys though. And I don't recall any negative information about his past being on the record for the jury, only way that info would have gotten to them is if they didn't follow the judge's directions to not watch the news or talk to people about the case.
    There's certainly nothing wrong with being paid for expert testimony, my firm offers those services. All I'm saying is that it's widely understood that a fact witness vs. expert witness is a completely different ballgame. A fact witness is, hypothetically, up there to provide factual testimony that is germane to the case. An expert witness is a hired gun to assist with pushing the argument of the side that is paying them. So the jury knows the expert witness is brought up their with some bias, and it's on the witness themselves to give compelling testimony that the jury may find credible.

    The absence of any fact witnesses that aided the defense's case vs the abundance that aided the prosecution is usually a pretty solid barometer of which side is in better position. And beyond that, it's just simply very difficult to ignore what the video shows. Even Rush Limbaugh basically said it was a senseless killing and Chauvin fucked up.

    Comment


    • Final thoughts: there is a big difference between this and other killings that are far more controversial.

      George Zimmerman wasn't convicted of a crime for killing Trayvon Martin because Martin was beating the shit out Zimmerman before he got shot.

      Darren Wilson wasn't convicted of anything for shooting Michael Brown because "hands up, don't shoot" was a literal lie and Brown tried to grab Wilson's gun from him while he was still in his police cruiser.

      And on and on. The difference here is that there were no extenuating or complicating circumstances -- Chauvin just casually kneeled on his neck while Floyd begged for his life and then Floyd died. And we got it all on video.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
        Final thoughts: there is a big difference between this and other killings that are far more controversial.

        George Zimmerman wasn't convicted of a crime for killing Trayvon Martin because Martin was beating the shit out Zimmerman before he got shot.

        Darren Wilson wasn't convicted of anything for shooting Michael Brown because "hands up, don't shoot" was a literal lie and Brown tried to grab Wilson's gun from him while he was still in his police cruiser.

        And on and on. The difference here is that there were no extenuating or complicating circumstances -- Chauvin just casually kneeled on his neck while Floyd begged for his life and then Floyd died. And we got it all on video.
        In a wild courtroom saga and after a mistrial due to hung jury, Slager got 20 years in a plea deal for killing Scott
        "From Chaos comes Clarity"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
          Pretty clear as in not first degree murder but murder in that his actions whether of negligence or depraved mind directly lead to Floyd’s death... yes. Second degree murder for sure. Very evident.
          Where I am living now, the country doesn't call it murder, homicide or anything close to those terms. It's merely causing death by ..... (fill in the blank). For example, death caused by assualt or death caused by dangerous driving. I think the term murder has so many layers of legality, it's hard for most people to grasp. So they latch on to 1st degree as their presumptive definition.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ndaccountant View Post

            Where I am living now, the country doesn't call it murder, homicide or anything close to those terms. It's merely causing death by ..... (fill in the blank). For example, death caused by assualt or death caused by dangerous driving. I think the term murder has so many layers of legality, it's hard for most people to grasp. So they latch on to 1st degree as their presumptive definition.
            When the average bear hears the term "murder" they think of the generic Murder 1 and Murder 2 definitions i would think. It gets more complicated with the variations like felony murder... the weirdest one i recall from criminal law class was murder 3. A dude got the label of murderer for being drunk and skiing too fast and hit a guy. I think some of the other common examples involved drunk driving.

            Curious how they do the sentencing for Chauvin. Wonder if it will be consecutive or concurrent... does he get the elevated sentences...etc. The answers to those can be the difference between like 10-15 years in the slammer and very possibly dying in there.

            Based Mullet Kid owns

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ResLife Hero View Post

              I don't mean this as a shot, but every lawyer I know is not surprised. This was a pretty clear case of murder if you take it just on the evidence. All the speculation was done by the defense, which is not a good strategy.

              I think some of the confusion comes from us lay people having preconceived notions about what "murder" is that differs from the written law and case law.
              I'm not surprised by the result but I didn't consider this an easy case for prosecutors either.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post

                When the average bear hears the term "murder" they think of the generic Murder 1 and Murder 2 definitions i would think. It gets more complicated with the variations like felony murder... the weirdest one i recall from criminal law class was murder 3. A dude got the label of murderer for being drunk and skiing too fast and hit a guy. I think some of the other common examples involved drunk driving.

                Curious how they do the sentencing for Chauvin. Wonder if it will be consecutive or concurrent... does he get the elevated sentences...etc. The answers to those can be the difference between like 10-15 years in the slammer and very possibly dying in there.
                He has no record, was a cop, won’t be a cop again, and is very low risk to be a danger in society later. I’d have to think he gets it light and walks out early.

                Trend in this country seems to be to throw them back on the streets fast anyways.
                Running the damn ball since 2017.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wild Bill View Post

                  I'm not surprised by the result but I didn't consider this an easy case for prosecutors either.
                  Are you a lawyer Wild Bill? I trust the IE lawyers more than most I see on TV or the YouTube or Twitter who say things to generate controversy or a following.

                  I agree, if it was easy I would assume the state wouldn't have brought in the heavy cav to get it sorted out? Then again, would hate to screw something up with low-quality help.

                  Based Mullet Kid owns

                  Comment


                  • From the video in Ohio.... looks like we got the media hyping some nonsense.
                    Based Mullet Kid owns

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drayer54 View Post

                      He has no record, was a cop, won’t be a cop again, and is very low risk to be a danger in society later. I’d have to think he gets it light and walks out early.

                      Trend in this country seems to be to throw them back on the streets fast anyways.
                      Is that true? Always seemed like we gave out longer prison sentences than other Western countries.
                      "The problem with having a sense of humor is often that people you use it on aren't in a very good mood." - Lou Holtz

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post

                        Are you a lawyer Wild Bill? I trust the IE lawyers more than most I see on TV or the YouTube or Twitter who say things to generate controversy or a following.

                        I agree, if it was easy I would assume the state wouldn't have brought in the heavy cav to get it sorted out? Then again, would hate to screw something up with low-quality help.
                        I think the prosecutor brought in the cavalry, because it was already a very high profile case and they had already experienced rioting. Kind of like a fast break dunk and using two hands instead of one. He wanted to be absolutely sure he got the conviction.

                        Heard this morning that the sentences will most likely be concurrent, because it was the same crime.

                        Chauvin was found guilty and rightfully so. We need to keep in mind that the police that are like Chauvin is a small percentage. We need to do a better job of evaluating not only when hiring someone to be a policeman, but ongoing evaluation once on the force. I have to believe that the job with all of its pressures can change your perspective or thought process over the years.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NDRock View Post

                          Is that true? Always seemed like we gave out longer prison sentences than other Western countries.
                          Thats not my understanding either. I have seen where the US prison population is ridiculously large relative to other developed countries especially those incarerated for long periods of time for nonviolent crimes. Im willing to be provided evidence othewise but I havent heard it yet. Add to this we have a growing privatized prison system (which is disgusting).
                          "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

                            I think the prosecutor brought in the cavalry, because it was already a very high profile case and they had already experienced rioting. Kind of like a fast break dunk and using two hands instead of one. He wanted to be absolutely sure he got the conviction.

                            Heard this morning that the sentences will most likely be concurrent, because it was the same crime.

                            Chauvin was found guilty and rightfully so. We need to keep in mind that the police that are like Chauvin is a small percentage. We need to do a better job of evaluating not only when hiring someone to be a policeman, but ongoing evaluation once on the force. I have to believe that the job with all of its pressures can change your perspective or thought process over the years.
                            I imagine they rightly determined 1st degree murder was not provable ans rightly sought 2nd and 3rd degree charges. I have to think that without that 9 min video what would have occured... I doubt it even would have made it to court and this man would back at work already. Im a big fan of filming encounters. Even though everyone will end up viewing the video through their own biases, many facts of the encounter will be documented which is only GOOD for truth and justice.
                            "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                            Comment


                            • Watching thisbody cam video... he arrives on the scene and shoots her within 5 seconds of arriving. Backup is present. No attempt to subdue the kid who is clearly engaged in a physical altercation with another person and likely has no idea he is there or can hear the three "Get Downs". Puts four into her and she dies.
                              https://abc6onyourside.com/news/loca...ting-4-20-2021

                              EDITED: Didnt see he had a knife initially.
                              Last edited by Cackalacky2.0; 04-21-2021, 08:13 AM.
                              "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
                                Watching thisbody cam video... he arrives on the scene and shoots her within 5 seconds of arriving. Backup is present. No attempt to subdue the kid who is clearly engaged in a physical altercation with another person and likely has no idea he is there or can hear the three "Get Downs". Puts four into her and she dies.
                                https://abc6onyourside.com/news/loca...ting-4-20-2021
                                Trying not to jump to conclusions, but there's a pretty clear screen grab of what the cop saw when he decided to shoot.

                                Not sure how you attempt to subdue someone that is about to stab another person. Maybe taser first? But then you still risk the knife ending up somewhere it shouldn't.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post

                                  I imagine they rightly determined 1st degree murder was not provable ans rightly sought 2nd and 3rd degree charges. I have to think that without that 9 min video what would have occured... I doubt it even would have made it to court and this man would back at work already. Im a big fan of filming encounters. Even though everyone will end up viewing the video through their own biases, many facts of the encounter will be documented which is only GOOD for truth and justice.
                                  I have no idea minus video if he'd be free or not. I think his smiling may have been the most damning evidence of all. Body cams should be a must for every policeman.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by IrishLion View Post

                                    Trying not to jump to conclusions, but there's a pretty clear screen grab of what the cop saw when he decided to shoot.

                                    Not sure how you attempt to subdue someone that is about to stab another person. Maybe taser first? But then you still risk the knife ending up somewhere it shouldn't.

                                    Oh yeah for sure, me too... I couldnt see the knife clearly in the video...Hadnt seen this image.
                                    "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by tussin View Post

                                      What are you implying..?
                                      Here was Candace Owens last night on Tucker:

                                      "What we're really seeing is mob justice, and that's really what happened with this entire trial. It's not a trial about George Floyd or Derek Chauvin. This was a trial about whether the media was powerful enough to create a simulation, decide upon a narrative, absent any facts. Whether it was powerful enough to repeat showing and talking about a 9-minute clip that came from somebody's cell phone without adding any context, without showing the full police video which they could've released, they refused to release the full body camera footage which would have offered more clarity to the fact that the media was lying.

                                      You know the media came out, let's not forget Tucker, the media came out and told us that this was a man who was just getting his life together, he was a good member of society and he got mixed up because a racist white police officer had it out for him and killed him. All of that fell apart. All of the facts came out and that fell apart. We now know, of course, that he had enough fentanyl in him, it was 3 times the lethal dosage. Three times the lethal dosage in him when he died. But nobody cares. Because the media was successful at putting out a narrative and they kept hitting that narrative and the reason why Democrats are happy is because they realized, of course, the media supports them.

                                      And now that means the Democrats can get whatever they want because they can create a narrative and they can treat people like pawns and get them to basically say: If we don't get what we want we will riot, we will loot, we will send these people out like soldiers to destroy your neighborhood. And that is exactly what has happened. That has been the determination of this trial. The media and the Democrats now have enough power to bully and to lie and to create propaganda to successfully win. And that is what happened and they are celebrating that win today. This was not a fair trial."


                                      There are people who find these comments revolting, who reject the lies, and who don't live in this crazed media-obsessed hell world where truth doesn't matter. Among the 30+ ND alums I know they would all agree about this, both Democrats and Republicans. I'd call these people normal Americans.

                                      Then, you have people who are bathing in Owen' comments and it informs and sustains their political mindset. Many of her points were repeated in here, nearly word for word, during the trial. When it seems like people are watching a totally different trial, this is why. When someone claims the defense witness--who offered a laughable amount of information that wasn't destroyed on cross examination--was really damning for the prosecution when that doesn't match reality, this is why. It's not being viewed through what I'd consider a normal or healthy lens. It's being viewed through the waste-land of far right grievance culture and regurgitated here.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Rocket89 View Post
                                        There are people who find these comments revolting, who reject the lies, and who don't live in this crazed media-obsessed hell world where truth doesn't matter. Among the 30+ ND alums I know they would all agree about this, both Democrats and Republicans. I'd call these people normal Americans.

                                        Then, you have people who are bathing in Owen' comments and it informs and sustains their political mindset. Many of her points were repeated in here, nearly word for word, during the trial. When it seems like people are watching a totally different trial, this is why. When someone claims the defense witness--who offered a laughable amount of information that wasn't destroyed on cross examination--was really damning for the prosecution when that doesn't match reality, this is why. It's not being viewed through what I'd consider a normal or healthy lens. It's being viewed through the waste-land of far right grievance culture and regurgitated here.
                                        ** critiques those who partake in our "media obsessed hell", proceeds to quote random Candace Owens segment at length **

                                        Candace Owens' job is to be a provocateur. I am not sure why you are so bothered by her comments. You're upset because some posters disagree with the verdict and gravitated more towards the defense's case? You feel that their interpretation is "not healthy"? Get over yourself and be happy that potential jurors with similar biases were weeded out during the selection process.

                                        Cities burned for over a month last summer and Minneapolis had to bring in 3,000 National Guard troops to prepare for riots in the event that the radical left didn't get the preferred verdict. I can assure you that irrationality isn't a problem confined to the right.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by tussin View Post

                                          Candace Owens' job is to be a provocateur.
                                          Congratulations to her.

                                          I am not sure why you are so bothered by her comments.
                                          Because they are disgusting? And they're aired on one of the most-watched nightly TV programs?

                                          You're upset because some posters disagree with the verdict and gravitated more towards the defense's case?
                                          I'm not upset, I'm happy justice was served. I'm simply pointing out to you very plainly why the majority of Americans saw this case one way and others did not.

                                          Comment




                                          • Very reasonable approach.
                                            Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by Rocket89 View Post

                                              Here was Candace Owens last night on Tucker:

                                              "What we're really seeing is mob justice, and that's really what happened with this entire trial. It's not a trial about George Floyd or Derek Chauvin. This was a trial about whether the media was powerful enough to create a simulation, decide upon a narrative, absent any facts. Whether it was powerful enough to repeat showing and talking about a 9-minute clip that came from somebody's cell phone without adding any context, without showing the full police video which they could've released, they refused to release the full body camera footage which would have offered more clarity to the fact that the media was lying.

                                              You know the media came out, let's not forget Tucker, the media came out and told us that this was a man who was just getting his life together, he was a good member of society and he got mixed up because a racist white police officer had it out for him and killed him. All of that fell apart. All of the facts came out and that fell apart. We now know, of course, that he had enough fentanyl in him, it was 3 times the lethal dosage. Three times the lethal dosage in him when he died. But nobody cares. Because the media was successful at putting out a narrative and they kept hitting that narrative and the reason why Democrats are happy is because they realized, of course, the media supports them.

                                              And now that means the Democrats can get whatever they want because they can create a narrative and they can treat people like pawns and get them to basically say: If we don't get what we want we will riot, we will loot, we will send these people out like soldiers to destroy your neighborhood. And that is exactly what has happened. That has been the determination of this trial. The media and the Democrats now have enough power to bully and to lie and to create propaganda to successfully win. And that is what happened and they are celebrating that win today. This was not a fair trial."


                                              There are people who find these comments revolting, who reject the lies, and who don't live in this crazed media-obsessed hell world where truth doesn't matter. Among the 30+ ND alums I know they would all agree about this, both Democrats and Republicans. I'd call these people normal Americans.

                                              Then, you have people who are bathing in Owen' comments and it informs and sustains their political mindset. Many of her points were repeated in here, nearly word for word, during the trial. When it seems like people are watching a totally different trial, this is why. When someone claims the defense witness--who offered a laughable amount of information that wasn't destroyed on cross examination--was really damning for the prosecution when that doesn't match reality, this is why. It's not being viewed through what I'd consider a normal or healthy lens. It's being viewed through the waste-land of far right grievance culture and regurgitated here.
                                              There are things I don’t disagree with. I think it’s very safe to say Democrats use dead black men as pawn politically. And I think it’s safe to say the left can riot and use rioting to their political advantage. People talk about Trump pandering and using dog whistles but the left seems okay with businesses and cities burning if it helps them politically.

                                              Comment


                                              • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                                                There are things I don’t disagree with. I think it’s very safe to say Democrats use dead black men as pawn politically. And I think it’s safe to say the left can riot and use rioting to their political advantage. People talk about Trump pandering and using dog whistles but the left seems okay with businesses and cities burning if it helps them politically.


                                                These people downplayed the death and destruction of cities and absolutely use dead black men as political pawns. It's all about power.
                                                Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by IrishLion View Post

                                                  Trying not to jump to conclusions, but there's a pretty clear screen grab of what the cop saw when he decided to shoot.

                                                  Not sure how you attempt to subdue someone that is about to stab another person. Maybe taser first? But then you still risk the knife ending up somewhere it shouldn't.

                                                  What if the taser misses either person and the other girl gets stabbed? All of the headlines I see say a black teen was fatally shot by police. None say a black teen/woman was saved by police from knife attack.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post

                                                    Are you a lawyer Wild Bill? I trust the IE lawyers more than most I see on TV or the YouTube or Twitter who say things to generate controversy or a following.

                                                    I agree, if it was easy I would assume the state wouldn't have brought in the heavy cav to get it sorted out? Then again, would hate to screw something up with low-quality help.
                                                    I am. Not a criminal attorney, though, so I'm no expert here. The result isn't surprising to me for two reasons. First, the state committed time and resources to convict him and they had plenty of volunteer help (from what I gather). Money and time is a huge hurdle for attorneys, especially prosecutors (feds excluded). Second, there was political, cultural and societal pressure to convict. You'd have to be as dumb as the day is long to believe this was lost on the jury.

                                                    That said, I didn't think it was a slam dunk of a case either. The prosecutors had to work for the result. I didn't watch the entire trial nor did I pay attention to the news. I watched clips here and there, and thought the cop's attorney poked holes in the case that were significant. He had a great demeanor and he impressed me. He certainly increased his earning potential moving forward.

                                                    In a case like this, I wonder whether or not a defendant would be better served to waive his right to a jury trial. Obviously it would depend on the judge assigned to the case but if I have a reasonable judge, I'm rolling the dice with him/her rather than a jury. That's my gut reaction but maybe data suggests something different.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Originally posted by Wild Bill View Post

                                                      I am. Not a criminal attorney, though, so I'm no expert here. The result isn't surprising to me for two reasons. First, the state committed time and resources to convict him and they had plenty of volunteer help (from what I gather). Money and time is a huge hurdle for attorneys, especially prosecutors (feds excluded). Second, there was political, cultural and societal pressure to convict. You'd have to be as dumb as the day is long to believe this was lost on the jury.

                                                      That said, I didn't think it was a slam dunk of a case either. The prosecutors had to work for the result. I didn't watch the entire trial nor did I pay attention to the news. I watched clips here and there, and thought the cop's attorney poked holes in the case that were significant. He had a great demeanor and he impressed me. He certainly increased his earning potential moving forward.

                                                      In a case like this, I wonder whether or not a defendant would be better served to waive his right to a jury trial. Obviously it would depend on the judge assigned to the case but if I have a reasonable judge, I'm rolling the dice with him/her rather than a jury. That's my gut reaction but maybe data suggests something different.
                                                      Doesn't the state generally have to agree to a bench trial? I would think the state would much rather have a jury handle a complicated and emotional case than a judge?

                                                      Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                      Comment


                                                      • Originally posted by Irishokie View Post

                                                        What if the taser misses either person and the other girl gets stabbed? All of the headlines I see say a black teen was fatally shot by police. None say a black teen/woman was saved by police from knife attack.
                                                        That's kind of what I was saying. You could attempt to use a taser if you'd rather not use deadly force... but then you still risk someone getting stabbed, whether it's because the taser doesn't work or because her muscles spasm and the knife still goes flying around.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • If you pull a knife in a fight and go in to stab someone... and a cop is there... I'm not saying you deserve to die, but I am not gonna blame the cop for putting you down for a dirt nap.
                                                          Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                          Comment


                                                          • Originally posted by Rocket89 View Post

                                                            I'm not upset, I'm happy justice was served. I'm simply pointing out to you very plainly why the majority of Americans saw this case one way and others did not.
                                                            So it aired on a cable channel. Not a big deal IMO. She's not going to sway anyone that thinks opposite of her views. I ignore her just like I ignore Al Sharpton.

                                                            To the bolded, I wonder what the real percentage is that felt he was guilty and what percentage thought he was innocent? I have no idea and I suppose the answer would be in how you phrased the question when you took a poll.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Originally posted by Wild Bill View Post

                                                              I am. Not a criminal attorney, though, so I'm no expert here. The result isn't surprising to me for two reasons. First, the state committed time and resources to convict him and they had plenty of volunteer help (from what I gather). Money and time is a huge hurdle for attorneys, especially prosecutors (feds excluded). Second, there was political, cultural and societal pressure to convict. You'd have to be as dumb as the day is long to believe this was lost on the jury.

                                                              That said, I didn't think it was a slam dunk of a case either. The prosecutors had to work for the result. I didn't watch the entire trial nor did I pay attention to the news. I watched clips here and there, and thought the cop's attorney poked holes in the case that were significant. He had a great demeanor and he impressed me. He certainly increased his earning potential moving forward.

                                                              In a case like this, I wonder whether or not a defendant would be better served to waive his right to a jury trial. Obviously it would depend on the judge assigned to the case but if I have a reasonable judge, I'm rolling the dice with him/her rather than a jury. That's my gut reaction but maybe data suggests something different.
                                                              Excellent post.

                                                              Comment


                                                              • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post

                                                                Doesn't the state generally have to agree to a bench trial? I would think the state would much rather have a jury handle a complicated and emotional case than a judge?
                                                                I believe it varies state to state but generally a defendant can voluntarily waive the right.

                                                                Google says MN requires the following:

                                                                The defendant must be permitted to waive a jury trial whenever the court determines: (i) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived that right; and (ii) reason exists to believe that, because of the dissemination of potentially prejudicial material, the waiver must be granted to assure a fair trial.
                                                                Whether the state prefers a jury or a judge largely depends on the judge, IMO. Again, I don't have experience in criminal court aside from my own issues I've dealt with but I drag my ass to court a few days a week and I can predict with a high degree of certainty how the judge I'm in front of will rule before they even speak.

                                                                Of course, the judge will be subjected to the same pressure the jury felt but are more equipped to handle the pressure and may rule without regard to the consequences.

                                                                In this particular case, a juror could have reasonbly believed he was guilty or not guilty (at least in my opinion), but we'll never know if the pressure played a role. And the fact that they could have reasonably ruled either way masks the inherent issues of the types of pressures they faced. The system is not designed to deal with this type of situation and there will be ongoing issues if it continues.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • Originally posted by IrishLion View Post

                                                                  That's kind of what I was saying. You could attempt to use a taser if you'd rather not use deadly force... but then you still risk someone getting stabbed, whether it's because the taser doesn't work or because her muscles spasm and the knife still goes flying around.
                                                                  Plenty of examples where a taser is ineffective. Should be the first option, but here again is a pressure, dangerous situation where the police have to make an immediate decision and there's no manual that tells you what to do.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post
                                                                    To the bolded, I wonder what the real percentage is that felt he was guilty and what percentage thought he was innocent? I have no idea and I suppose the answer would be in how you phrased the question when you took a poll.
                                                                    Most people don't know the legal definition of second degree murder vs. third degree vs. manslaughter nor do they appreciate the justice system standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. That said, I do agree with him that most people would poll that Chauvin acted criminally.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Originally posted by tussin View Post

                                                                      Most people don't know the legal definition of second degree murder vs. third degree vs. manslaughter nor do they appreciate the justice system standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. That said, I do agree with him that most people would poll that Chauvin acted criminally.
                                                                      Right. It's very obvious based on what the general public has seen from day one that he is guilty of something. The matter, which was left up to the jury, was what exactly was he guilty of.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

                                                                        Plenty of examples where a taser is ineffective. Should be the first option, but here again is a pressure, dangerous situation where the police have to make an immediate decision and there's no manual that tells you what to do.
                                                                        Tasers rarely work from what I have seen, if the officer did not shoot in that situation the other girl was going to be stabbed multiple times.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • Originally posted by GowerND11 View Post

                                                                          Right. It's very obvious based on what the general public has seen from day one that he is guilty of something. The matter, which was left up to the jury, was what exactly was he guilty of.
                                                                          My opinion will be unpopular but I thought what Chauvin did was pretty par for the course as far as what any other officer would do. If there is no death or medical issue not one officer or rational person would really put up much of an argument in regard to criminality. Where Chauvin really really fucked up was Floyd was pretty much dead and he still had his knee on his back/neck. I have worked in jails/prisons/residential centers and this type of force is fairly common. For any officer or anyone familiar with restraints says otherwise they probaby sit behind a desk or have an agenda. I have seen restraints like these almost on the daily. I am sure this was not new to Chauvin, I am sure it was not new to the Minneapolis police department, I am sure its happened before Floyd and I am sure its happened after Floyd. I sort of see policing like being a little league umpire, everyone sittting on the sidelines thinking they can do better yelling and screaming at that one bad call forgetting they just basically called a perfect game up until that point.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • If you don't want to get shot, then maybe don't try stabbing people in front of a cop. The cop arrived upon a felony in progress and acted to protect another citizen. Short of some crazy new video or evidence being presented that changes what we've been shown, there is no gray area on this one.

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by calvegas04 View Post

                                                                              Tasers rarely work from what I have seen, if the officer did not shoot in that situation the other girl was going to be stabbed multiple times.
                                                                              Tasers are basically to gain compliance. This girl appeared to swing the knife at someone to try and kill someone. You meet force with force.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                                                                                If you don't want to get shot, then maybe don't try stabbing people in front of a cop. The cop arrived upon a felony in progress and acted to protect another citizen. Short of some crazy new video or evidence being presented that changes what we've been shown, there is no gray area on this one.
                                                                                Its sad situation. Foster child, I am sure she had some issues. No rational 16 year old would be tying to stab someone in front of an officer. I am curious of the backstory, I am sure its just as tragic as what happened.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                                                                                  My opinion will be unpopular but I thought what Chauvin did was pretty par for the course as far as what any other officer would do. If there is no death or medical issue not one officer or rational person would really put up much of an argument in regard to criminality. Where Chauvin really really fucked up was Floyd was pretty much dead and he still had his knee on his back/neck. I have worked in jails/prisons/residential centers and this type of force is fairly common. For any officer or anyone familiar with restraints says otherwise they probaby sit behind a desk or have an agenda. I have seen restraints like these almost on the daily. I am sure this was not new to Chauvin, I am sure it was not new to the Minneapolis police department, I am sure its happened before Floyd and I am sure its happened after Floyd. I sort of see policing like being a little league umpire, everyone sittting on the sidelines thinking they can do better yelling and screaming at that one bad call forgetting they just basically called a perfect game up until that point.
                                                                                  I'm a certified SCM trainer for the educators at a juvenile justice facility in PA. None of us are taught to put a knee on the back, so no, I'm not familiar with it. It's illegal/against protocol for us to put juveniles in the prone position (yes juveniles, not adults I know). If someone was restraining a kid here like that, I would immediately tag them out and get the kid into a seated kneeling or supine position. Also, if a kid was limp, you better believe someone is getting the other off the fucking person. So, no I stand by my stance that you can argue he was guilty of something by the time Floyd is not breathing and he continues to knee on him.

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                                                                                    Its sad situation. Foster child, I am sure she had some issues. No rational 16 year old would be tying to stab someone in front of an officer. I am curious of the backstory, I am sure its just as tragic as what happened.
                                                                                    Her mom went on TV claiming she was a sweet child and honor student and that she promoted peace. I'm sorry, but she was shot in the middle of stabbing someone. That's promoting peace?

                                                                                    Call me crazy, but if someone is about to stab me and the police have the opportunity to stop them I hope they do it.

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post

                                                                                      Her mom went on TV claiming she was a sweet child and honor student and that she promoted peace. I'm sorry, but she was shot in the middle of stabbing someone. That's promoting peace?

                                                                                      Call me crazy, but if someone is about to stab me and the police have the opportunity to stop them I hope they do it.
                                                                                      See, and that is where the media is ridiculous. I mean, I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a parent here. What are they supposed to say? "My child was a bastard?!?!?!" But there's the cameras and microphones right in front of these parents that are trying to get a grip on the reality of the situation.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • Originally posted by GowerND11 View Post

                                                                                        I'm a certified SCM trainer for the educators at a juvenile justice facility in PA. None of us are taught to put a knee on the back, so no, I'm not familiar with it. It's illegal/against protocol for us to put juveniles in the prone position (yes juveniles, not adults I know). If someone was restraining a kid here like that, I would immediately tag them out and get the kid into a seated kneeling or supine position. Also, if a kid was limp, you better believe someone is getting the other off the fucking person. So, no I stand by my stance that you can argue he was guilty of something by the time Floyd is not breathing and he continues to knee on him.
                                                                                        There was a corrections officer on Fox News yesterday who said something similar. Basically, he cited use of forces memos published by the DOJ in '92 and '95 and said what Chauvin did was clearly wrong. And that beyond being the wrong thing to do, the compounding problem is that after Floyd was subdued and restrained there was absolutely no reason for him to act like he did... especially after he became unresponsive. It seems like, at minimum, Chauvin was negligent.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post

                                                                                          There was a corrections officer on Fox News yesterday who said something similar. Basically, he cited use of forces memos published by the DOJ in '92 and '95 and said what Chauvin did was clearly wrong. And that beyond being the wrong thing to do, the compounding problem is that after Floyd was subdued and restrained there was absolutely no reason for him to act like he did... especially after he became unresponsive. It seems like, at minimum, Chauvin was negligent.
                                                                                          Exactly. Even if you don't think there's enough evidence, whatever, for a murder conviction (which has been discussed ad nauseam here), this is still a criminal act that most of the public should agree is minimally manslaughter.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • Originally posted by Irish#1 View Post

                                                                                            To the bolded, I wonder what the real percentage is that felt he was guilty and what percentage thought he was innocent? I have no idea and I suppose the answer would be in how you phrased the question when you took a poll.
                                                                                            Well, you could go look at the polls that are taken and get an idea, I suppose.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • Originally posted by GowerND11 View Post

                                                                                              I'm a certified SCM trainer for the educators at a juvenile justice facility in PA. None of us are taught to put a knee on the back, so no, I'm not familiar with it. It's illegal/against protocol for us to put juveniles in the prone position (yes juveniles, not adults I know). If someone was restraining a kid here like that, I would immediately tag them out and get the kid into a seated kneeling or supine position. Also, if a kid was limp, you better believe someone is getting the other off the fucking person. So, no I stand by my stance that you can argue he was guilty of something by the time Floyd is not breathing and he continues to knee on him.
                                                                                              George Floyd was 6ft 6in 230 pounds, getting him into a seated would have been a fools errand. Maybe if police were actually in shape and fit it might be a possibility but looking at those officers they would not have a chance. Typically in a facility medical is usually called along with some sort of CERT or response team. Medical usually calls the shots to an extent. I agree if anyone, even an adult, goes limp its pretty evident its not a restraint anymore. I really really wanted to hear from Chauvin on what the hell he was thinking. A perfect restraint is rare and I am not really saying a prone restraint is "textbook" or preferred but it probably happens so often its pretty normal.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post

                                                                                                Her mom went on TV claiming she was a sweet child and honor student and that she promoted peace. I'm sorry, but she was shot in the middle of stabbing someone. That's promoting peace?

                                                                                                Call me crazy, but if someone is about to stab me and the police have the opportunity to stop them I hope they do it.
                                                                                                I agree.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • Originally posted by Blazers46 View Post

                                                                                                  George Floyd was 6ft 6in 230 pounds, getting him into a seated would have been a fools errand. Maybe if police were actually in shape and fit it might be a possibility but looking at those officers they would not have a chance. Typically in a facility medical is usually called along with some sort of CERT or response team. Medical usually calls the shots to an extent. I agree if anyone, even an adult, goes limp its pretty evident its not a restraint anymore. I really really wanted to hear from Chauvin on what the hell he was thinking. A perfect restraint is rare and I am not really saying a prone restraint is "textbook" or preferred but it probably happens so often its pretty normal.
                                                                                                  Of course a perfect restraint is rare, and things vary in the real world compared to a residential facility. But as I said from my initial post, there comes a time, no matter what the circumstances, that once a person is limp there's something wrong, and you need to get the hell off them.

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • Originally posted by Rocket89 View Post

                                                                                                    Well, you could go look at the polls that are taken and get an idea, I suppose.
                                                                                                    You aren't quite as up to date on the polling as you think. Here is what I found after five minutes of Google.

                                                                                                    • For example, now, far fewer Americans personally believe George Floyd was murdered (36%) compared to last summer (60%). Though slightly more believe it was an accident (8%, up from 3%), much of this shift has been to respondents saying they don’t know. Currently, 17% say they don’t know how to characterize Floyd’s death, up from 4% in June.
                                                                                                    • Similarly, one in five Americans are unsure about whether it is more important to protect law and order or the right to protest, up eight percentage points from June.
                                                                                                    • More than one-third (36%) say they have either heard nothing at all or are unsure about the trial of Derek Chauvin for his role in the death of George Floyd.
                                                                                                    • In general, there continue to be significant differences of opinion on issues related to policing and racial equality, as we also saw in the June survey. For example, there is a more than 50-point difference between Democrats and Republicans on the belief that incidents of police misconduct against Black Americans reflect systemic racism in law enforcement (74% of Democrats agree vs. 20% of Republicans). There is a nearly 40-point difference between white and Black Americans on whether George Floyd was murdered (64% of Black Americans agree vs. 28% of white Americans). These differences extend to nearly every question in the survey.

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                    • Originally posted by tussin View Post

                                                                                                      You aren't quite as up to date on the polling as you think. Here is what I found after five minutes of Google.


                                                                                                      Why would you say that and link to something prior to evidence at the trial being presented?

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Adsense

                                                                                                      Collapse
                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X