Police State USA

[drayer54]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/BreeNewsome/status/1384725341550305281?s=20[/TWEET]

Very reasonable approach.

 

[Blazers46]

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.

 

[drayer54]

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.

 

[Irishokie]

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.

 

[Wild Bill]

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.

 

[NorthDakota]

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?

 

[IrishLion]

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.

 

[NorthDakota]

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.

 

[Irish#1]

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.

 

[Irish#1]

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.

 

[Wild Bill]

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.

 

[Irish#1]

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.

 

[tussin]

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.

 

[GowerND11]

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.

 

[calvegas04]

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.

 

[Blazers46]

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.

 

[IrishLax]

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.

 

[Blazers46]

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.

 

[Blazers46]

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.

 

[GowerND11]

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.

 

[IrishLax]

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.

 

[GowerND11]

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.

 

[IrishLax]

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.

 

[GowerND11]

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.

 

[Rocket89]

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.

 

[Blazers46]

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.

 

[Blazers46]

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.

 

[GowerND11]

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.

 

[tussin]

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.

 

[Rocket89]

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?