George Floyd murderer's trial

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I definitely think Chauvin was wrong. So wrong, he shouldn't ever be entrusted with a security position, much less a police job, ever again. There should be penalties for what he did.
But not murder.

HOWEVER, Floyd contributed hugely to his own demise. An emotive video that went viral doesn't begin to cover the whole situation, but it did convince a bunch of people that Chauvin tortured Floyd to death for allegedly passing a fake $20. The video doesn't show Floyd's health issues, or that Floyd took enough drugs to kill some people, or that Floyd was safely in a car demanding to be restrained physically on the ground instead. The video only shows Floyd's death. Which I doubt would have happened if Floyd had made a few choices differently.

Floyd certainly wouldn't have been restrained by the knee on the neck if he'd stayed in the car. But he didn't want to stay safely in the car.
And he got his way.

What I'm pointing out is that there's plenty of blame to spread around. Blaming everything on Chauvin is ridiculous.
Tom.

I definitely think Dr. Rapist was wrong. So wrong, he shouldn't ever be entrusted with a healthcare position, much less a doctor job, ever again. There should be penalties for what he did.
But not rape.

HOWEVER, the rapee contributed hugely to her own rape. An emotive video that went viral doesn't begin to cover the whole situation, but it did convince a bunch of people that Dr. Rapist raped the rapee for going into the medical room. The video doesn't show the rapee's health issues, or that the rapee took a bunch of drugs, or that the rapee was safely in the waiting room demanding to go into the doctor's office instead. The video only shows the rapee's rape. Which I doubt would have happened if the rapee had made a few choices differently.

The rapee certainly wouldn't have been restrained in the doctor's office if she'd stayed in the waiting room. But she didn't want to stay safely in the waiting room.
And she got her way.

What I'm pointing out is that there's plenty of blame to spread around. Blaming everything on Dr. Rapist is ridiculous.

 

[RVonse]

Having complaints proves nothing. What matters is if he actually did things wrong. Plenty of people complain about things that didn't happen.

Having complaints when engaged in some business gives the appearance of impropriety. The mere appearance of impropriety is, in the vast majority of workplace settings, an impropriety.

I do not accept that cops, when they have such complaints against them in such numbers, ought continue in the roles those complaints were filed pertaining to without independent investigation.

I agree with Jarhyn. If you get a lot of accusations some of them may indeed be fictional. But the overall feedback provides an indicator just like ebay uses for their transactions.

 

[TomC]

I definitely think Chauvin was wrong. So wrong, he shouldn't ever be entrusted with a security position, much less a police job, ever again. There should be penalties for what he did.
But not murder.

HOWEVER, Floyd contributed hugely to his own demise. An emotive video that went viral doesn't begin to cover the whole situation, but it did convince a bunch of people that Chauvin tortured Floyd to death for allegedly passing a fake $20. The video doesn't show Floyd's health issues, or that Floyd took enough drugs to kill some people, or that Floyd was safely in a car demanding to be restrained physically on the ground instead. The video only shows Floyd's death. Which I doubt would have happened if Floyd had made a few choices differently.

Floyd certainly wouldn't have been restrained by the knee on the neck if he'd stayed in the car. But he didn't want to stay safely in the car.
And he got his way.

What I'm pointing out is that there's plenty of blame to spread around. Blaming everything on Chauvin is ridiculous.
Tom.

I definitely think Dr. Rapist was wrong. So wrong, he shouldn't ever be entrusted with a healthcare position, much less a doctor job, ever again. There should be penalties for what he did.
But not rape.

HOWEVER, the rapee contributed hugely to her own demise. An emotive video that went viral doesn't begin to cover the whole situation, but it did convince a bunch of people that Dr. Rapist raped the rapee for going into the medical room. The video doesn't show the rapee's health issues, or that the rapee took a bunch of drugs, or that the rapee was safely in the waiting room demanding to go into the doctor's office instead. The video only shows the rapee's rape. Which I doubt would have happened if the rapee had made a few choices differently.

The rapee certainly wouldn't have been restrained in the doctor's office if she'd stayed in the waiting room. But she didn't want to stay safely in the waiting room.
And she got her way.

What I'm pointing out is that there's plenty of blame to spread around. Blaming everything on Dr. Rapist is ridiculous.

Ha ha ha!

Oh wait. You're serious.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Defense trying to get a mistrial declared in multiple ways...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rep. Waters not helping.

I don't think anything about curfew. Curfew means I want you all to stop talking. I want you to stop meeting. I want you to stop gathering. I don't agree with that.

When these protests happen, the hooligans come out at night. Like clockwork. The curfew is about addressing that. We know that this happens, so it is unfair to say it is about silencing the protestors. They are trying to prevent the violence and destruction from hooligans that use these situations to their advantage (whatever it is).

We got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business

Is she inciting violence. No. BUT is she saying the right things? Not completely.

Of course, the GOP jumps on this in their White-Right movement. A guy was killed because an officer restrained the guy with a knee to the neck for an absurd amount of time. Seems like America is completely fucked, if we can't agree that that much is wrong.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Day 15

Here is my summary from today.

The format from today consisted of closing arguments, rebuttal, and judge instructions to the jury. There were a couple of small debates between the lawyers and the judge as well. One of these was a claim by the defense to get a mistrial.

Closing arguments were very long and reviewed evidence.

One of the very interesting things that happened is that there were a couple of differences in interpretation of judge's instruction and these came out in the way that closing arguments were made. So, for example, the judge's instruction involved some statement like "intentional, unlawful assault." The defense interpreted this as intentional (unlawful assault) whereas the prosecution interpreted it as intentional, unlawful (assault) so it would not necessarily be intentionally unlawful according to the prosecution. This came out in the closing arguments. Then, there was another issue where the defense claimed that the instruction was that Chauvin could only be guilty if his knee on the neck was the ONLY factor in Floyd's death. The prosecution claimed it only had to be substantial and that there could be other causal factors.

The claims for mistrial by the defense were the publicity the trial was getting including recent statement by Waters and also that the prosecution was insulting them.

The jury began their deliberations in private.

There is a good set of articles on the day here.

 

[Metaphor]

Is she inciting violence. No. BUT is she saying the right things? Not completely.

If Waters' statements are not incitement, then nothing Trump said was incitement either.

 

[Patooka]

Is she inciting violence. No. BUT is she saying the right things? Not completely.

If Waters' statements are not incitement, then nothing Trump said was incitement either.

Only if you think context doesn't matter.

 

[Rhea]

Rep. Waters not helping.

I don't think anything about curfew. Curfew means I want you all to stop talking. I want you to stop meeting. I want you to stop gathering. I don't agree with that.

When these protests happen, the hooligans come out at night. Like clockwork. The curfew is about addressing that. We know that this happens, so it is unfair to say it is about silencing the protestors. They are trying to prevent the violence and destruction from hooligans that use these situations to their advantage (whatever it is).

I agree with you, Jimmy. This is not acceptable what she said. She should have said, “and we expect the police to be watching for the actual agitators, not harassing peaceful protesters!”

We got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business

Is she inciting violence. No. BUT is she saying the right things? Not completely.

Of course, the GOP jumps on this in their White-Right movement. A guy was killed because an officer restrained the guy with a knee to the neck for an absurd amount of time. Seems like America is completely fucked, if we can't agree that that much is wrong.

I feel like this is inciting and she should never have said it. There is enough going on, there is enough emotion already. This poweder keg does not need her words to either incite the protesters or to give cover to the agitators.

 

[Metaphor]

Is she inciting violence. No. BUT is she saying the right things? Not completely.

If Waters' statements are not incitement, then nothing Trump said was incitement either.

Only if you think context doesn't matter.

Every single time I read that Trump "incited" the Capitol riot, I have to go back to see what the evidence for it is and I'm re-flabbergasted at how straw-graspingly desperate it is. If Trump "incited" a riot with his boilerplate, vapid rhetoric, then how much the more has Waters done. Not even couching her suggestion people should be more confrontational in a peaceful way.

FWIW I don't think Waters incited anything. I just note the double standard.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's a politically unwise thing to say because it can easily be taken out of the context of the person she is and what she supports.

 

[TomC]

Only if you think context doesn't matter.

Every single time I read that Trump "incited" the Capitol riot, I have to go back to see what the evidence for it is and I'm re-flabbergasted at how straw-graspingly desperate it is. If Trump "incited" a riot with his boilerplate, vapid rhetoric, then how much the more has Waters done. Not even couching her suggestion people should be more confrontational in a peaceful way.

FWIW I don't think Waters incited anything. I just note the double standard.

I can understand why someone from a different culture on the other side of planet wouldn't get it.

But there really is a huuuuuge difference between President Trump's incitement and Waters.

They both did it. And I'm not defending Waters.

But it's like you don't see a difference between lobbing a Molotov cocktail and dropping a nuke.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Every single time I read that Trump "incited" the Capitol riot, I have to go back to see what the evidence for it is and I'm re-flabbergasted at how straw-graspingly desperate it is.

Agreed. The arguments he made and what his lawyers said on his behalf in regard to the election being stolen were fucking pathetic. What Rep. Waters is referring to (i.e. to complete absence of police accountability) is very well documented. Poorly worded but grounded in reality. Also, FWIW, I don't think Trump deserved to be impeached. It's also pretty obvious the guy is a soft cock and will never take responsibility for his actions. His narcissism, his comments on every single election being rigged against him, his unwillingness to accept reality and possibly object permanence all indicate he wanted a riot done in his name so long as he isn't held accountable. For fuck's sake, he has yet to condemn his personal fucking lawyer (and how many clients do you think Giuliani has?) demanding trial by combat on Jan 6. Trump isn't upset domestic terrorism occurred on his watch, he's upset that it fail. But because he didn't sign a confession in front of Jesus and Mother Teresa stating this, good faith skeptics like yourself exhibit reasonable doubt. Rep Waters is upset Law Enforcement isn't being held to the same standards as citizens, when in a fair and just world should be held to a higher standard. Coupled with the plethora of examples of Trump's obfuscation ("I hope you can make this go away", "I need you to do me a favour" etc) and it's pretty obvious you are comparing apples with an orange fascist wannabee.

You might want to dial back your SKY News consumption.

 

[Metaphor]

I can understand why someone from a different culture on the other side of planet wouldn't get it.

But there really is a huuuuuge difference between President Trump's incitement and Waters.

Saying there is a 'huuuuuge' difference without explaining why you believe there to be a difference isn't going to convince anybody who doesn't already agree with you.

They both did it. And I'm not defending Waters.

I don't think either of them 'incited', or attempted to incite, violence. I do note, however, that Waters's comments come after multiple nights of rioting where there has already been violence.

But it's like you don't see a difference between lobbing a Molotov cocktail and dropping a nuke.
Tom

No: I can't see how Trump said anything inciting at all. Not a nuke. Not a Molotov cocktail. Nothing at all. I refer to the BBC article I linked. The people who think Trump incited people are engaging themselves in a flight of fantasy. The people who accused Trump of inciting people certainly were not incited to riot themselves. They have to imagine themselves as somebody else, and they are certain that somebody else was incited to riot, even if that somebody else was, according to their own judgment, completely nuts.

 

[SLD]

Chauvin Jury Predictions

OK. The jury has the case. What do you think the verdict will be? (As opposed to what you think it ought to be.)

I think it will be second degree murder.

Here is Minnesota’s statute on 2nd degree murder:

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

It seems to me that under subdivision 2 he could be found guilty as he killed Floyd while committing another felony, i.e. assault, even though he did not have the intention to kill Floyd.

The other alternative is manslaughter and of course, not guilty.

 

[Metaphor]

Every single time I read that Trump "incited" the Capitol riot, I have to go back to see what the evidence for it is and I'm re-flabbergasted at how straw-graspingly desperate it is.

Agreed. The arguments he made and what his lawyers said on his behalf in regard to the election being stolen were fucking pathetic. What Rep. Waters is referring to (i.e. to complete absence of police accountability) is very well documented. Poorly worded but grounded in reality. Also, FWIW, I don't think Trump deserved to be impeached. It's also pretty obvious the guy is a soft cock and will never take responsibility for his actions. His narcissism, his comments on every single election being rigged against him, his unwillingness to accept reality and possibly object permanence all indicate he wanted a riot done in his name so long as he isn't held accountable. For fuck's sake, he has yet to condemn his personal fucking lawyer (and how many clients do you think Giuliani has?) demanding trial by combat on Jan 6. Trump isn't upset domestic terrorism occurred on his watch, he's upset that it fail. But because he didn't sign a confession in front of Jesus and Mother Teresa stating this, good faith skeptics like yourself exhibit reasonable doubt. Rep Waters is upset Law Enforcement isn't being held to the same standards as citizens, when in a fair and just world should be held to a higher standard. Coupled with the plethora of examples of Trump's obfuscation ("I hope you can make this go away", "I need you to do me a favour" etc) and it's pretty obvious you are comparing apples with an orange fascist wannabee.

You might want to dial back your SKY News consumption.

I'm not sure I asked for your advice about my news consumption.

 

[Patooka]

Doesn't the vote have to be unanimous for 2nd degree murder? I still think hung jury.

 

[Patooka]

I'm not sure I asked for your advice about my news consumption.

No worries. I'm certain you didn't. It's great advice nonetheless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Having complaints proves nothing. What matters is if he actually did things wrong. Plenty of people complain about things that didn't happen.

Having complaints when engaged in some business gives the appearance of impropriety. The mere appearance of impropriety is, in the vast majority of workplace settings, an impropriety.

I do not accept that cops, when they have such complaints against them in such numbers, ought continue in the roles those complaints were filed pertaining to without independent investigation.

I agree with Jarhyn. If you get a lot of accusations some of them may indeed be fictional. But the overall feedback provides an indicator just like ebay uses for their transactions.

The problem is that it also reflects what you do on the force.

Somebody who patrols the inner cities will have a lot more complaints than someone who patrols Small Town, USA.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not sure I asked for your advice about my news consumption.

No worries. I'm certain you didn't. It's great advice nonetheless.

I don't think people intentionally give out advice that they believe to be bad advice. What I'll say is it's unsolicited advice and unwelcome advice and based on a false premise. That's bad advice in my book.