Liberal Protests

[Prickly Pete]

On 5/29/2020 at 1:13 PM, Motorin' said:

 

It's starting to look like the breaking of windows at the Auto Zone was organized as an excuse for the police to start tear gassing the protest. 

 

The man with the black umbrella smashed out the windows.  "Free ***** for Everyone Zone" has been spray painted in the door before he started breaking the windows. He goes to the dumpster and probably throws out a can of spray paint.

 

 

Within 30 secs of smashing the windows, and the moment he goes behind the building you hear the gas get fired into the crowd.

 

 

 

By the time he gets down the street in this video, the crowd is dispersing due to the tear gas: 

 

https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1266343490465775622

 

 

I don't know who this guy is aligned with, but I do know there are lots of people working to establish him in the general public's eyes as an agent for whoever they oppose, be it white nationalists, antifa, the police, or some other faction.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Prickly Pete

[MILFHUNTER#518]

I never thought I would live to see the day when there are American Soldiers, issued live ammunition, with authorization to use lethal force deployed on an American street.

 

What a sad day indeed.

[SectionC3]

16 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

The video evidence shows the cop leaning on Floyd's neck for 8 minutes (give or take).

 

You might be more of a legal expert than me (I have no idea), but that evidence is there in plain sight to see.

 

It’s probably better cast as evidence of recklessness, not of intent, for the reasons that I noted earlier.  You can try to argue intent  . . . But I’m skeptical for the aforementioned reasons.  Murder requires intent, manslaughter requires recklessness.  Taking all of the videos, rioting, and histrionics out of this, this case has all the appearances of a manslaughter. 

[njbuff]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

It’s probably better cast as evidence of recklessness, not of intent, for the reasons that I noted earlier.  You can try to argue intent  . . . But I’m skeptical for the aforementioned reasons.  Murder requires intent, manslaughter requires recklessness.  Taking all of the videos, rioting, and histrionics out of this, this case has all the appearances of a manslaughter. 

 

Does manslaughter mean he actually has a shot at getting off?

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

You and I must have lived in very different places, I am friends with several local cops and they are not as you state here. I think maybe in large cities it is like you say, which is not to say it is acceptable but you are painting with a very wide brush.

Most cops are know are good decent people, but I have met a few that I was shocked what I heard casually come out of their mouth. How hard core racists that broadcast their ignorance and yet keep their jobs is troubling to me. 

[Rob's House]

22 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Maybe, maybe not.  That’s why we investigate.  

 

Practically speaking, intentional murder is going to be tough to prove.  You’re going to have to sell a jury on the idea that a cop intended to choke to death the victim in broad daylight in uniform on a somewhat crowded street and while he might have been aware he was being recorded.  Maybe we get more information that would support a murder charge.  I’m still skeptical not that such a charge will be levied (this officer, in addition to being in pretty deep ess, also has become a political football), but that such a charge would stick based on what we’ve seen to this point. 

 

I've been thinking along these lines as well, because while the cop used excessive force that resulted in death it seems unlikely that he actually intended to kill the guy. Under Minnesota law, however, it looks like he could be found guilty of what they call Third Degree Murder without such intent. The statute reads as follows:

 

Quote

Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years. Mn. Code Sec. 609.195(a).

 

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

It’s probably better cast as evidence of recklessness, not of intent, for the reasons that I noted earlier.  You can try to argue intent  . . . But I’m skeptical for the aforementioned reasons.  Murder requires intent, manslaughter requires recklessness.  Taking all of the videos, rioting, and histrionics out of this, this case has all the appearances of a manslaughter. 

Exactly, he wasn't trying to kill him. He just didn't care for the guys obvious suffering 

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

Does manslaughter mean he actually has a shot at getting off?

 

He always has a shot at getting off.  If nothing else there’s always a hope for jury nullification.  But a manslaughter charge here probably increases the likelihood of conviction for practical and legal reasons because it’s most consistent with the evidence (at least the evidence that I’ve seen). 

[Motorin']

Just now, Prickly Pete said:

 

 

I don't know who this guy is aligned with, but I do know there are lots of people working to establish him in the general public's eyes as an agent for whoever they oppose, be it white nationalists, antifa, the police, or some other faction.

 

My housemate is working hard, posting repeatedly on all social media that he is definitely a white nationalist. 

 

For sure, no one knows that he's a member of antifa any more than they know he is a white nationalist. It is a Rorschach test  in a way. 

It's probably also true that  the overwhelming majority of people can look at what happened to George Floyd and say that it was horrible and wrong, and also say the same thing about the looting and burning. 

The fact that most people can agree about the central issue, and be entirely divided on the cause and solution just says that the forces at work to divide us are really effective. 

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Most cops are know are good decent people, but I have met a few that I was shocked what I heard casually come out of their mouth. How hard core racists that broadcast their ignorance and yet keep their jobs is troubling to me. 

I will agree with you twice in a week Tibs- I am starting to question my own intelligence. Though the cops I know do not say racist things around me ever but I know that racist people love the power that comes from being a cop and they need to be removed 

[billsfan1959]

1 hour ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

This is incorrect. There is published evidence that does support that theory. Below is an example from last year from Rutger's University. 

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

 

 

Here is the abstract.

 

We use data on police-involved deaths to estimate how the risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States varies across social groups. We estimate the lifetime and age-specific risks of being killed by police by race and sex. We also provide estimates of the proportion of all deaths accounted for by police use of force. We find that African American men and women, American Indian/Alaska Native men and women, and Latino men face higher lifetime risk of being killed by police than do their white peers. We find that Latina women and Asian/Pacific Islander men and women face lower risk of being killed by police than do their white peers. Risk is highest for black men, who (at current levels of risk) face about a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by police over the life course. The average lifetime odds of being killed by police are about 1 in 2,000 for men and about 1 in 33,000 for women. Risk peaks between the ages of 20 y and 35 y for all groups. For young men of color, police use of force is among the leading causes of death.

 

He's lying or a moron.

 

Or both.

 

Maybe you could help us out here. There are some things I coudn't find in this article.

 

(1) Could you point to the place in this study that breaks down the circumstances of each homicide they looked at to determine the factors that led of the killing, whether it was justified, the motivations behind the killing, etc?

 

(2) Could you point to the location in the article where they found the killngs were racially motivated?

 

(3) Or is it your contention that the article giving a higher risk for blacks to be killed by police is enough, on it's own, to say that the killings are racially motivated?

 

There are not many databases that break down all cases where someone is killed at the hands of the police. Most track shootings. The Washington Post has started keeping a pretty extensive record of police shootings

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

 

According to them, Whites account for 62% of the population and 50% of the deaths, while Blacks account for less than 13% of the population and account for 24% of deaths. This pretty much tracks other sources: In any given year there are about 1000 (+/-) police shooting deaths with Whites accounting for approx 50% of victims and Blacks accounting for approximately 25% of the victims.

 

Is it your contention that, because a disproportionate number of Blacks (per population) are killed, that it must be racially motivated - absent any other context?

 

According to the FBI https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf

 

In 2015 (the last year available in the study) shows that there were over 6,000,000 (six million) contacts between Law Enforcement Officers and blacks. The previous study in 2011 showed over 7,000,000 (seven million) contacts between Law Enforcement Officers and blacks.

 

Given that figure, if there was some sort of "open season" on black men, wouldn't you expect to see more than 200-225 deaths per year in 6 million interactions?

 

The FBI also did a study of Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed from 2009-2018 https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2018/home

 

In that study, they found that Blacks, which make up less than 13% of the population, accounted for approximately 38% of all the killings in which the offender was known.

 

What is your interpretation of the fact that Blacks are even more disproportionately represented as killers of Law Enforcement Officers than they are as victims of Law Enforcement Officer killings?

 

 

[SectionC3]

5 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

I've been thinking along these lines as well, because while the cop used excessive force that resulted in death it seems unlikely that he actually intended to kill the guy. Under Minnesota law, however, it looks like he could be found guilty of what they call Third Degree Murder without such intent. The statute reads as follows:

 

 

 

So they went with the Minnesota equivalent of depraved indifference murder.  Note “without intent” and “eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind” phrases in the statute.  I’m curious to know how the Minnesota legislature and courts have defined “depraved mind.”  That’s the key to the charge.  In New York State, it’s very difficult to convict of depraved indifference murder in a one-on-one setting.  (Read the case Peo v Barboni.)  The definition of “depraved mind” there likely is different from the definition of “depraved indifference” here, so who knows.  

 

I’m curious whether the prosecutor included a fallback manslaughter charge. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by SectionC3

[Tiberius]

Trump told a crowd of police officers in July 2017, "When you guys put somebody in the car, and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody. Don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?”

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I’m curious whether the prosecutor included a fallback manslaughter charge. 

Word is yes. 3rd degree murder and manslaughter charges

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

So how is looting a business part of a protest against police brutality? But I find it sad that you actually think the men who showed up to protest the lockdown were there for haircuts. Those men wanted to be left alone by govt and allowed to open their businesses since they felt the govt was oppressing them. Since peaceful protests are guaranteed by the constitution I support both groups to make their voices heard so long as it is peaceful.

To put it simply, the argument I've heard is that people won't take peaceful protests against police brutality seriously and it won't get as much media coverage leading to absolutely no meaningful change.  Now that the officer has been charged with manslaughter they may point to the fact that it worked.

[SectionC3]

 

2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Word is yes. 3rd degree murder and manslaughter charges

 

Anything re: any of the other officers?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Anything re: any of the other officers?

Not that I've seen yet. Were they also taken into custody? 

[Prickly Pete]

11 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

For sure, no one knows that he's a member of antifa any more than they know he is a white nationalist. It is a Rorschach test  in a way. 

It's probably also true that  the overwhelming majority of people can look at what happened to George Floyd and say that it was horrible and wrong, and also say the same thing about the looting and burning. 

The fact that most people can agree about the central issue, and be entirely divided on the cause and solution just says that the forces at work to divide us are really effective. 

 

 

Yeah....that's not my point.

 

My point is that there is a battle to get this guy established as on a particular "team", and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the "truth".

[BuffaloHokie13]

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

To put it simply, the argument I've heard is that people won't take peaceful protests against police brutality seriously and it won't get as much media coverage leading to absolutely no meaningful change.  Now that the officer has been charged with manslaughter televisions are back to their regularly advertised prices.

Also