Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man

[nonobaddog]

Given that juries can generally always consider lesser charges, I'm not persuaded.

Certainly. It's a decision by the prosecution. They can go for one charge, and only try to prove that charge - or go for lesser charges as well, and prove the elements of all potential charges. Generally, a prosecution is going to want to get a conviction on something, so will include the lesser charges. In the Zimmerman trial, the prosecutors only attempted to prove the element of the murder charge. They did not include lesser charges, or attempt to prove the elements of any lesser charges. IIRC further, the jury inquired about lesser charges, and the judge rightly told them that they could only consider the charge presented to them.

The statement I saw said he has changed the charge to M2, not added the charge to the existing charge.

 

[ghitch75]

Looks like Floyd was claimed by COVID19... RIP

Full report https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hen...-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf

why iam i not supprised....

 

[OurDee]

Covid-19? So, it is all over?

 

[HoughMade]

Would that surprise you?

Lesser included offenses....and no trial until next year anyway.

 

[HoughMade]

The statement I saw said he has changed the charge to M2, not added the charge to the existing charge.

About trusting the press to report legal matters accurately....

Chauvin is now charged with 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter.

 

[nonobaddog]

About trusting the press to report legal matters accurately....

Chauvin is now charged with 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter.

Yeah, good. If they can't get one of those to stick then we can enjoy more of those riots.

 

[foszoe]

I'll preface this by noting that there is an entire thread already devoted to discussion of BLM. So my discussion here will be limited.

The point that I want to make here, because I think it is relevant to the current situation, is that the moral outrage over police killing of black people under the guise of "Black Lives Matter" is largely a grift, since police killing of black people accounts for maybe 1% of all killings of black people. The vast majority - 85 - 95%, give or take, depending on the year - are black people who are killed by other black people. If people's feelings are inflamed by the 1% and not by the 95%, then those feelings are either misguided through ignorance or else intentionally manipulated/misled due to some underlying agenda. As such, I do not think that we are compelled to act in a way that must validate those feelings.

If the unnecessary killing of black people is a legitimate issue (and I agree that it is) causing legitimate pain the the black community (and I agree that it does), then why aren't the "Black Lives Matter" protesters protesting against the underlying cause(s) of the killing of the 85 - 95%? Why are the protests always and only focused on a cause of 1% of those killings? Further, why is the mere mention of this point met with such opposition by the people ostensibly protesting out of the pain caused by the unnecessary killing of black people? If pointing out this disparity invalidates feelings, so be it. Perhaps those feelings need to be invalidated by fact, so that the real issues causing the real pain can be uncovered and dealt with.

Because the 85-95 is not in their mission statement.

They focus on the 1% because it is in their mission statement.

#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives.

647,000 Americans die from heart disease everyday. We have an American Heart Association focused on minimizing that.

606,520 Americans die from cancer per year. We have an American Cancer society for that.

140,00 Americans die from strokes per year. We have an American Stroke Association for that.

They are all deaths from disease, but having an organization focused on a specific cause of death doesn't seem to cause angst because more people die from one or the other. We can understand that each plays a role in disease research and prevention.

If BLM wants to focus on one cause, why would that be different? There are numerous black oriented civil rights organizations. Are any of them focused on "black on black" crime?

Is there a distinction between one person killing another and a person who represents authority killing another? If so, could that play a role in why one results gets than the other?

 

[Alpo]

Because the 85-95 is not in their mission statement.

They focus on the 1% because it is in their mission statement.



647,000 Americans die from heart disease everyday. We have an American Heart Association focused on minimizing that.

606,520 Americans die from cancer per year. We have an American Cancer society for that.

140,00 Americans die from strokes per year. We have an American Stroke Association for that.

They are all deaths from disease, but having an organization focused on a specific cause of death doesn't seem to cause angst because more people die from one or the other. We can understand that each plays a role in disease research and prevention.

If BLM wants to focus on one cause, why would that be different? There are numerous black oriented civil rights organizations. Are any of them focused on "black on black" crime?

Is there a distinction between one person killing another and a person who represents authority killing another? If so, could that play a role in why one results gets than the other?

I was thinking along the same lines a few minutes ago. I'm upset about George Floyd as most people are. I don't give a tinker's damn about ultra-radical black groups who see "them" as anyone who doesn't agree with their view of the world. I'm tired of 13% of the nation acting like they deserve 100% of it.

 

[Twangbanger]

Because the 85-95 is not in their mission statement.

They focus on the 1% because it is in their mission statement.



647,000 Americans die from heart disease everyday. We have an American Heart Association focused on minimizing that.

606,520 Americans die from cancer per year. We have an American Cancer society for that.

140,00 Americans die from strokes per year. We have an American Stroke Association for that.

They are all deaths from disease, but having an organization focused on a specific cause of death doesn't seem to cause angst because more people die from one or the other. We can understand that each plays a role in disease research and prevention.

If BLM wants to focus on one cause, why would that be different? There are numerous black oriented civil rights organizations. Are any of them focused on "black on black" crime?

Is there a distinction between one person killing another and a person who represents authority killing another? If so, could that play a role in why one results gets than the other?

I get what you're saying, and not to be nitpicky, but it's kind of a bad analogy. I think what Chip and others are saying, is that what BLM are doing would be comparable to ACS going hogass wild about chemicals in water bottles causing a fraction of a you-know-what hair of cancer deaths, while totally ignoring that people choosing to smoke causes a zillion times as much cancer. It's kind of a semantic point not really worth arguing about, but what Chip and others are really saying is that if that is BLM's mission statement, then their Mission Statement sucks.

I suspect it's really a question of A) freedom, and B) the whole "Punching Up / Punching Down" motif that social justice types are so obsessed with. Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable and all that crap. If hood-rats choose to live a life of drugs and whacking each other over drug beefs...that is their choice. They are living their lives in accordance with their system of values, and dying with their boots on in a manner that is meaningful to them. As inscrutable as that is to us, it is their Pursuit of Happiness. But like the Palestinians see the Israelis, Police in the so-called "black community" are seen as a sort of external occupying force trying to impose a system of values foreign to them, privileged interlopers inserting themselves into their business and making them live their lives differently than they choose. (Put aside for the moment that the shop-keeper _called_ the police). I'm an American. I may waste my money on prostitutes, tobacco, and liquor as fast as I can spend it, but I'll be damned if I will tolerate some British ******* putting a tax on tea. "My Ryeets."

More simply, Privileged White Cops killing black criminals is "Punching Downard," and in modern social justice bull**** theory, "Punching Downward" must be assiduously avoided at all costs. Drug beefers killing each other is not cause for civil rights concern, because nobody involved is "Punching Down."

And quite frankly, to be crass, it's not only BLM who are under-valuing the deaths of black people committed by black people in drug beefs. Do _you_ personally, really lose that much sleep over it? I am a pretty typical American in that, as long as they don't bring it to my turf, it's "not my problem." I'm not like Jetta Knight. If a sparrow falls off a tree limb, good for him. I don't have to see it, nor effing care. I don't walk up and down the sidewalk praying about all the black babies in the dumpster behind Planned Parenthood. But I do not want agents of the state killing George Floyd like happened here, because 1) it validates BLM and adds energy to their movement, and 2) that kind of police behavior could be turned against me or anyone else, someday.

(But I do get what you're saying about the mission statement thing).

 

[tbhausen]

I don't think convictions is the right way to look at this anyway. The things that are alleged is that black people are shot proportionally more than white people, and that this is an indication of institutional racism. Looking at encounters with police is a better level of evaluation because it's directly correlated. It's really hard to be shot by police if you never encounter them. And you typically encounter them a lot more if you engage in crime, are associated with someone who engages in crime, or live in an area where crime is high. Superficially, it looks like blacks have disproportionately more encounters than whites. As posted before, if we look at police shootings per 10K arrests, the numbers are pretty equal.

So that says that we really don't have a huge problem with racist cops. But it also shows that we have a disproportionate number of blacks that encounter police compared to whites. So that would be the thing to work on. Ending no-knock raids would end some accidental shootings. Ending stop and frisk would reduce the number of encounters with police. Implementing policies that tend to lift people out of poverty would also reduce crime in the area, and therefore would also reduce the number of encounters. Reduce that and you reduce the number of black people killed by cops.

Policies don’t lift people out of poverty unless they cooperate.

 

[tbhausen]

Wow, I read that article too. If clicking on it gets me on a watchlist, I’m in deep ****. That article was toxic.

 

[tbhausen]

Those progressives who seek to make our society more and more secular would do well to truly understand what faith is all about:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Confirmation is the sacrament which gives the Holy Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation, incorporate us more firmly into Christ, strengthen our bond with the Church, associate us more closely with her mission, and help us bear witness to the Christian faith in words accompanied by deeds. The confirmed Christian goes forth joyfully in the fulfillment of his vocation. Strong in his faith and with an ardent love for souls which stems from his love for Christ, he feels a continual concern for others. He feels a restless discontent unless he is doing something worthwhile for others—something to ease their burdens in this life, and something to make more secure their promise of life eternal. His words and his actions proclaim to those around him: “Christ lives, and he lives for you.” The grace to do this is the grace which Jesus promised to his apostles (and to us) when He said: “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me… even to the very ends of the earth” (Acts 1: 8).”


— The Faith Explained by Leo J. Trese
https://a.co/8nJZGsu

 

[jamil]

I was the foreman on a jury for a murder trial and we were given very specific instructions by the judge on what we could consider and what we could not. At no time were we given instructions that we could wing it and change the charges.

I recall it being addressed by media at the time that the jury specifically did not have the option to find Zimmerman guilty of a lesser crime, and many people thought the prosecution lost because they overcharged him, ruining their chances of a conviction.

And so that would be very relevant here because people are suggesting that this prosecutor is deliberately overcharging so that the cops would be acquitted to fuel more riots. So even if it’s a matter of the prosecutor having to leave lesser charges on the table, if that were his goal, why would he? I don’t have sufficient reasons to believe this is the goal at this point, so I say that only for the sake of discussion.

ETA I meant to quote Chip, not NNBD.

 

[jamil]

Policies don’t lift people out of poverty unless they cooperate.

If you adopt policies that increase the opportunities for people to have contact with police, it’s logical that removing those policies would decease the opportunities.

 

[ghuns]

...After seeing the title of the piece I was worried that if I clicked on it I might end up on a watchlist.

Go ahead, click away.
You're on INGO, you already are.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Go ahead, click away.
You're on INGO, you already are.

I try not to think about that too much. On an unrelated note: good morning to all the .gov-types monitoring this transmission.

 

[Hookeye]

Wow, I read that article too. If clicking on it gets me on a watchlist, I’m in deep ****. That article was toxic.

I found it yrs ago on Fred Reed's site "Fred on Everything" and it was linked on some mainstream media (how I found it).
His site looks to be gone, as he was a pretty grumpy dude that rattled about everything.

His site was "Fred Reed- on everything"

and he was classified as a curmudgeon.

Quick search shows it at the place I linked. Have no idea what that site is and don't care, I just went because the article was there.

As for the article itself being toxic.
Unpleasant subject.

But I wouldn't put it in the same class as the looting, arson and murder going on the last few days of protest.

 

[churchmouse]

This has gotten to be most interesting read.

BLM is pushing a specific agenda and they ride the waves generated by these events. MSM is a main source of the fuel that drives these machines.
Take away the waves and many of those groups will perish.
The tactics used by those groups are disruptive for a reason and to me do not give them any real merit. As they do not actually address why so many of their people are dyeing and living in poverty.

I am in complete lock step with Alpo on this one. I grow weary of that small percentage of the populace causing 90% of the problems we face daily. We seem to have been stripped of any reasonable way to address the issues at hand by the tools we have made available to them in this struggle. The race card is a powerful club they wield as a weapon. PC thought police are everywhere.

Looking back at the chain of events that led up to all of this we should be holding the people that are in charge of oversite to be accountable at some level for allowing this group of bad apples to maintain their positions of authority over the people. The trail of abuse and misuse of that authority is pretty long. Had this been properly addressed at the onset of those issues we would still be dealing with the beer virus.

 

[Hookeye]

Too many people are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble.

People have the right to speak, even if they are completely wrong.

We can choose to listen or not.

Got no problem with protests, even if in error. But looting, arson and violence are not protests.
And there is no excusing such poor behavior.

 

[chipbennett]

Because the 85-95 is not in their mission statement.

They focus on the 1% because it is in their mission statement.

And that's precisely the problem.

647,000 Americans die from heart disease everyday. We have an American Heart Association focused on minimizing that.

And BLM would be the equivalent of focusing on the CHD deaths caused by Aspartame.

606,520 Americans die from cancer per year. We have an American Cancer society for that.

And BLM would be the equivalent of focusing on cancer deaths due to 5G.

140,00 Americans die from strokes per year. We have an American Stroke Association for that.

And BLM would be the equivalent of focusing on TIAs.

They are all deaths from disease, but having an organization focused on a specific cause of death doesn't seem to cause angst because more people die from one or the other. We can understand that each plays a role in disease research and prevention.[/quote]

The analogy doesn't hold. In none of your examples is the organization in question focusing on the 1% of cause to the exclusion of the 95% of cause.

If BLM wants to focus on one cause, why would that be different? There are numerous black oriented civil rights organizations. Are any of them focused on "black on black" crime?

A couple reasons:

1. Because the messaging is disproportionate with the problem
2. Because the issues underlying the 95% are a causal factor for the 1%

Police-involved shootings happen generally as a function of police interactions in the line of duty, and those interactions happen primarily as a result of criminal activity. Police interactions that lead to shootings are also generally a function of interaction with violent criminal activity. Why does that matter? Because (depending on the data source) anywhere from 2/3 to 90% of all murders are related to gang and/or drug activities - i.e. they are correlated to violent criminal activity.

So, it is reasonable to question both the mission statement and the messaging of BLM, because they are not consistent with what one would reasonably conclude would result in their desired outcome - i.e. fewer black persons being needlessly killed - including fewer black persons being killed by the police.

Is there a distinction between one person killing another and a person who represents authority killing another? If so, could that play a role in why one results gets than the other?

The answer to that question depends on whether one believes that a certain agenda/narrative is being driven and/or enabled by the current mission and messaging of BLM.