jmdrake
Member

The worst thing you can do to a person is to get them to take on the label of "victim". And yet, that's what the left wants to do. Make people feel like they're being victimized because of who they are. After all, why bother with those opportunities you speak of if you believe it's a pointless effort? I grew up a poor white kid in a poor black neighborhood outside of DC. My primary advantage over my friends was not that I was white - it was that I didn't have people telling me every day of my life that I was a victim of society. I had the belief that if I wanted something, I could work to get it. And if I worked hard enough or smart enough, I could get it. My friends were told a whole different story. Later in life, I worked for a few unions. Again, their message to union members was that the company is taking advantage of us and the only way to make it better was to stand together against them. I was literally paying people to convince me that I was being victimized. After all, if I was a happy, productive worker, I wouldn't need a union. So, when you say, "it's on them", I think you underestimate how seductive that message is. And how relentlessly it's drilled into their heads since birth. And the chances of most of them getting the opposite message - that you can do whatever you want if you work hard enough - are slim. I doubt anyone from my neighborhood would have even known there was another viewpoint. The question shouldn't be, "why do so many blacks fail?", the question is why so few succeed. The left LOVES victims. They need victims to retain their power.

I'm not sure why you are using Daniel Shaver as an example. Daniel Shaver pointed what looked very much like a sniper rifle out of a window. When S.W.A.T. was called, after begging for his life, Shaver made a move that looked very much like he was going for a gun. His shooting was at least as justified as the shooting of Adam Toledo. Absolutely just as justified. As in I would not justify it, but based on the standard you have used you would have but for the fact that Daniel Shaver was otherwise a good upstanding citizen. And note, I'm not bringing race into it. Toledo was definitely a thug. But at the moment of his death he wasn't a real threat, he was a perceived threat. At the moment of Daniel Shaver's death he wasn't a real threat. He was a perceived threat. George Floyd, at the moment of his death, was not a threat. In fact he was dead for several minutes after Chauvin was treating him like a threat, rather than a medical emergency. You want to compare apples to apples, talk about Tony Timpa. But I'm glad you instead brought up Shaver because it better brings home the point that we all pick an choose which deaths we are outraged about. /rant Edit: New rant. And as for Ashli Babbit, we are supposed to simultaneously believe that Trump tried to call in the National Guard because he knew how dangerous and volitaile the situation was going to be and yet be shocked and outraged that ONE protester got shoot apparently trying to break through a barracaded window that was already severly cracked. What do you think National Guard Troops would have done to Ashli Babbit under those circumstances? And if that D.C. police officer just wanted to kill Trump supporters, as the alt-right claims, then why did he just shoot one? /end second rant

Well....I think the lockdowns have contributed to an increase in gun violence.

Okay. It turns out that Minnesota doesn't use the "merger doctrine." See: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2021/04/on-monday-there-will-be-closing-arguments-in-the-derek-chauvin-trial-in-this-post-i-will-break-down-the-three-charges-that.html So...let's see how this works. If you don't intend to do anyone harm, but you kill them, third degree murder. If you intend to assault them, but accidentally kill them, second degree murder. If you intend to kill them, but it's in the heat of the moment, still second degree murder.

I agree that the jury should have been sequestered, but with the level of pre-trial publicity prior to jury selection I doubt that really meant anything. I don't think change of venue is meaningful in this case unless you mean outside the U.S. This simply was not a localized crime. Where could Sirhan Sirhan find a jury that hadn't already read about the Robert F. Kennedy assasination? As for expert witness intimitation, which expert witnesses are you thinking about? Because I saw no evidence of that. Yeah....but the defense didn't bring foward one. The defense did a good job cross examining the state's experts. But they never when beyond "fentynal can kill you" to "the reason why we don't think the chest and neck compression wasn't the major contributing factor do Floyd's death was..." The autopsy did not reveal pills in Floyd's stomach, so that rules out the "Floyd ingested a large dose of fentynal." And the uphill battle for the defense was that they had to rule out Chauvin's actions as a major contributing factor. Yes Floyd said "I can't breath" before being put on the ground. Yes that is significant. But then you get to "Why would you put your knee on the neck of someone that just told you I can't breath?" I saw the defense try to push the idea that a "prone position" isn't inherently dangerous. The defense mentioned multiple scenarios of people being put in prone positions. But none of those were "prone positions with your knee on the neck and chest."

Yup. We don’t see these problems in the sticks. But somehow it’s our fault. No matter what.

Stop responding to calls. Disband the police. Isn't that what they wanted?

You're talking about the "merger doctrine" and yeah...that is a problem. There has to be some element that is different from the underlying offense and the larger offense. (Easy example, it's possible to steal someone's car without killing him). In this case the underlying crime might be "violating police procedures during an arrest." I dunno. I need some more info on that. I'll try to look up the Chauvin charging document when I have time.

Good. I've been trying to send that message to youngsters for years! (for many years now, "cop" was a default career option for high schools kids who didn't have a good direction for their lives. Very similar to "nurse")

Okay. I all can do the the point that "CNN talking heads can't be trusted and the routinely say asinine things that undermine the rule of law" is to agree with you. I think Chauvin got a fair trial, but I think CNN sucks air.

Good question! This is what I found. https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-murder-charge-explained-5e7c935f560219caee61fcc0bef0a23d The second-degree murder charge requires prosecutors to prove Chauvin caused Floyd’s death while committing or trying to commit a felony — in this case, third-degree assault. Prosecutors don’t have to prove that Chauvin was the sole cause of Floyd’s death — only that his conduct was a “substantial causal factor.” The manslaughter charge has a lower bar, requiring proof that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death through negligence that created an unreasonable risk, and consciously took the chance of causing severe injury or death. That's why there was the battle over whether the knee restrait was within policy or not.

Yeah, I'm a little confused as to how they convicted on all three charges, but it doesn't really bother me. If this makes someone less likely to become a cop, I'd say it's a fantastic success. "You want to enforce the edicts of the state?? What if they throw you under the bus and you're not personally protected?? Still want to do it?" The only thing that really irks me about this whole thing is the ridiculous race angle the media is taking. But cops paying the price for being state tools?? Excellent!

This is pretty much my take exactly.

Yeah, I caught that, too. He'd have to measure respiratory rates 137 times a day - every day - for 40 years in order for his testimony to be accurate. Or maybe it was just a figure of speech. Regardless, I'm about 99% positive that Floyd wouldn't have stopped breathing had he not had friendly officers pinning him down for swindling a pack of smokes. I'm not sure how anyone can come to a different conclusion.

:rolleyes: Is this what you are referring to? http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2104/09/ip.02.html NELSON: Let's take the police out of this. And I'm going to ask you a hypothetical. Let's assume you found Mr. Floyd dead in his residence, no police involvement, no drugs, right, the only thing you found would be these facts about his heart. What would you conclude to be the cause of death? THOMAS: In that very narrow set of circumstances, I would probably conclude that the cause of death was his heart disease. That's testimony from the forensic pathologist. Based on all of the circumstance in of what really happened she determined it was a homicide. That medical examiner said that with all of the other circumstances involved he would not have ruled it an overdose. If you see someone alone in an apartment with blundt force trauma to the head and blood on the side of the tub you might rule it a slip and fall. But if there is video of someone hitting someone else over the head you wouldn't rule the death a slip an fall. Here is video testimony.

Sure. That doesn't mean that A) that was the cause in this case and B) there wasn't a contributing cause. Chauvin had his knee on Floyds next two minutes after Floyd didn't have a pulse. Explain that one to me.

And there were other experts that said the opposite. You're grasping at straws here. Show me an expert that rebutted the breathing testimony.

His opinion is irrelevant. The opinions of the people that that O.J. was guilty were irrelevant also.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

:rolleyes: A much better comparison can be made between ^this video and the Adam Toledo video or the Tamir Rice video or the Philando Castille video than to George Floyd. I'm sad Mr. Shaver died. But at one point he clearly made a move that could have been interpreted as going for a gun. People want to talk about "Play stupid games and win stupid prizes?" Well Mr. Shaver pointed a scoped pellet gun out of a hotel window. That's what brought in S.W.A.T. Pretty stupid. I don't think Shaver should have been shot. I don't think Toledo should have been shot. I don't think Tamir Rice should have been shot. I don't think Philando Castille should have been shot. But in each of those cases there was a possible "I was in fear for my life" defense. Derek Chauvin never could claim to be in fear of his life. Police convictions are rare. The Somali born cop that killed the white woman from Australia because he freaked out and fired blindly after hearing a "bang" was convicted even though he used the "I was in fear of my life" defense. And he should have been convicted. But so should some other cops. (Philando Castille's killer at least). The guy that shot Oscar Grant in the back after he was on the ground handcuffed because he thought he had a taser got convicted. We'll see if this latest taser / shooter gets acquitted. If you want to compare apples to apples talk Tony Timpa. I'll reserve judgement on this one as I haven't seen a good angle of the video. But from what I saw it seems to back up the claim that she was attempting to jump through the barrade door window. That was another stupid game to play. When Capital Hill Police murdered Miriam Carey (black), they pulled her daughter out of the car before gunning her down. I don't recall any police ever being charged. I hope Tony Timpa (white) gets some justice. I hope the same for Kelly Thomas (white). Both of those killings seem completely unjustified and there's no evidence of "stupid games" being played. But the same standard has to be applied. If cops get the benefit of the doubt when they shoot someone who happens to be unarmed because they think he has a gun, even if it really is a wallet (Amadou Diallo - black), then they get the benefit of the doubt when the same thing happens and the suspect is white. If they don't, then they don't.

Is there anything other than an acquittal that would have you think it trial was fair? "Beyond reasonable doubt" never means "beyond any scintila of a possibility of doubt." The breathing expert explained why fentynol did not cause George Floyd's death based on the breathing rate. Also in this video he explains the effects of the knee on the kneck (at one point Chauvin's foot was in the air showing that all he weight was on his kneck) and on Floyd's chest. And when you consider the fact that the prosecution didn't need to prove that Chauvin's actions were the sole cause of death, but merely show that it was a signficant contributing factor, and you combine that with the expert testiony, it's quite understandable that the reasonable doubt threshold was met. I think Chauvin's defense attorney did a good job all things considered. But without rebutting that expert testimony, Chauvin was toast. O.J. Simpson had Barry Scheck to come in and rebut the DNA evidence. That and the lack of chain of custody introduced reasonable doubt. All I've heard from the Chauvin defenders is "Well...Floyd had drugs in his system."

Thank you for posting this! I have to admit I was expecting a "Gracie infomercial" but there is a ton of great information. It's also intersting that at 16 minutes in he explains how a police officer ended up killing an off duty firefighter (both white) because the police officer didn't have the right training. The killing was "justified" based on the use of force continuum, but not necessary.

...on camera.

Chauvin didn't kill himself.

Does this send a signal to cops that they’re not protected?? Somehow I doubt it.

The only person that can change a person is that person. Accept some responsibility and modify their perceptions. Quit blaming someone else.

Maybe - but do you really want a 8 to 5 ruling that it's ok to intimidate juries if you do it for "equitable" reasons??

Quoted for effect. All we ever get anymore are "noble lies". Which, of course, aren't noble at all.

Lithium metal, sodium metal and potassium metal all react violently with water, forming hydrogen gas in the process. Water only increases the fire.