Minneapolis Cop Murders A Black Man

[SHOOTER12 8787]

2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Flaming hot take Hank! 

Whut?? Flaming hot Hank??? WTH man?

[Clintonaldo 2571]

Is is true the deceased had prior DUI convictions ?

[workswithseed 2033]

8 minutes ago, Clintonaldo said:

Is is true the deceased had prior DUI convictions ?

And beat his kids, as I've been told.

Edited June 19, 2020 by workswithseed
Should make it apparent.

[Clintonaldo 2571]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

And beat his kids

Stop the character assassination. 

[EuroHorn 3204]

11 minutes ago, Clintonaldo said:

Is is true the deceased had prior DUI convictions ?

He was on probation I believe for False Imprisonment, Simple Battery/Family, Battery Simple and Felony Cruelty/Cruelty to Children.  Not sure about prior DUI

Edited June 19, 2020 by EuroHorn

[Clintonaldo 2571]

7 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

He was on probation I believe for False Imprisonment, Simple Battery/Family, Battery Simple and Felony Cruelty/Cruelty to Children.  Not sure about prior DUI

I didn’t know that. I honestly heard somewhere that sounded reputable that it wasn’t his first DUI so that might have explained why he tried to run. 

[EuroHorn 3204]

1 minute ago, Clintonaldo said:

I didn’t know that. I honestly heard somewhere that sounded reputable that it wasn’t his first DUI so that might have explained why he tried to run. 

Van Jones take on the issues

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/opinions/rayshard-brooks-probation-interview-jones/index.html

 

[Gatorubet 30082]

19 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

That last sentence is just stupid.  

You do criminal or civil?   Beyond reasonable doubt is a very tough standard.  

What I was trying to say is that I don't think the existence of the taser is the same as a firearm under Georgia law.  Maybe it is.   Look, beyond reasonable doubt is a tough standard.  Of course that is right.   But what is the jury venire like?  Trumpkins - or black folk?    Was the cop going for his gun before the guy fired the taser?  That would tend to mitigate his fear of bodily harm as the motive.  Was it clear he was not going to be injured by the taser when her fired - or was it just too bang-bang quick an event to attribute that knowledge to the cop?  Instant replay is nice, but this was in real time.  

Was the  cop outside of the effective range of the taser when he fired his pistol at the fleeing guy?  15 feet is about the max, and that is not presumed to be done aiming while hauling ass and turning.   Were the officer's post-shoot actions more in line with that of a person protecting himself from great bodily harm - or more in line with that of a person who was angry at the guy for running away, and thus a mirror into his mental state at the time of the shooting?   

Hell, cops seem to get off all of the time.   I'm not saying he won't.    I'm saying that it is not as cut and dry as some think.   And that having a taser in his hand may not be the total defense that some seen to suggest. 

 

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-3-21

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23 , a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.

(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:

(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1 , respectively; and

(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion.

[workswithseed 2033]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/body-cam-footage-officer-who-shot-brooks-begs-him-to-stay-alive-mr-brooks-keep-breathing-keep-breathing-for-me?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

 

While performing CPR, former Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe begged for Rayshard Brooks to “keep breathing,” body camera footage reveals.

“Mr. Brooks, keep breathing,” Rolfe, 27, can be heard saying in the footage. “Keep breathing for me.”

“The jerky body-cam footage captures him kneeling on the ground and administering CPR to the bleeding man while Brosnan looks on,” reports the Daily Mail, which published the footage. “Rolfe administered CPR until the ambulance arrived and can be heard repeatedly calling Mr. Brooks’ name as he tried to keep him alive.”

On Friday, a Wendy’s employee called the police after Brooks, under the influence of alcohol, passed out behind the wheel, blocking drive-through traffic.

“The officers ran Brooks through a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer that pegged Brooks’ blood alcohol concentration at .108%, according to body cam footage released by the Atlanta police department. The legal limit to drive is .08%,” The Daily Wire reported on the incident. “After cooperating for nearly half an hour, Brooks fought with the officers as they tried to place him in handcuffs. All three struggled and fell to the ground where Brooks managed to take Brosnan’s taser and escape the officers. Rolfe shot after Brooks fired the stolen taser at him.”

Rolfe was charged Wednesday with felony murder.

A close friend of Rolfe’s said the former officer did not want to shoot Brooks but felt no other choice to preserve his own life.

“Garrett didn’t want to do it,” said the friend, according to the Daily Mail. “He had been punched and was dazed. Brooks had gone to tase him and he said that he knew that if he went down Brooks might kill him.”

“[Rolfe] told me he fired a shot up above [Brooks’] head but he didn’t stop and so he fired twice more,” the source added, “He didn’t want to do it. There’s no hate in Garrett’s body. He doesn’t hate black. He doesn’t hate white. In that moment he was in fear for his life.”

Following the announcement of the highly controversial felony murder charge, Rolfe’s attorney said in a statement: “Officer Rolfe is well known to the courts and there is no compelling reason to bring any charges against them before the GBI has completed its investigation and published its findings.”

In a separate statement, the attorney for Devin Brosnan, Rolfe’s partner, ripped Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard for the “rush to misjudgment.”

“The decision to initiate charges by the Fulton County DA’s office is irrational and obviously based on factors which should have nothing to do with the proper administration of justice,” the attorney said in a blistering rebuke of the DA. “This was not a rush to judgment. This was a rush to misjudgment.”

[Murfdogg21 4412]

A whole lot of armchair QBs definitively judging a cop for firing on a guy who quickly turned at him with a weapon and who just seconds earlier tried to beat the shit out of him and his partner. 

We have a lot of responsible gun owners and CHL folks on here. If someone who is a threat or that has already engaged you turned quickly and pointed something at you, your wife, or child, would you hesitate to fire on them, honestly? Hindsight and slow motion camera say “dumbass cop it was obviously just the taser and he didn’t have another weapon on him! And weren’t you counting taser discharges previously fired during that split second before drawing your weapon! Dumbass murderer enjoy your prison rape!”

It was the cop’s job to pursue him. The deceased turned around quickly and drew a weapon toward the cop. In real time it’s hard for me to say I would’ve done anything different. I’m sure if the cop knew how it would turn out, he’d have not pursued. Shit he’d have called in sick that shift. It’s not like he went to work looking to hunt POC.

Less than lethal, but more effective than taser, weapons may be the way to go moving forward. It seems that tasers are too often ineffective at disabling people resisting arrest. At the same time, this issue could use a better martyr than a felon trying to avoid jail time by fighting cops, stealing their taser, running, then turning back and pointing a weapon at a cop in a dark parking lot. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Murfdogg21

[dcar00 14028]

1 hour ago, Clintonaldo said:

Is is true the deceased had prior DUI convictions ?

shhhh...you will be called a you know what

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

What I was trying to say is that I don't think the existence of the taser is the same as a firearm under Georgia law.  Maybe it is.   Look, beyond reasonable doubt is a tough standard.  Of course that is right.   But what is the jury venire like?  Trumpkins - or black folk?    Was the cop going for his gun before the guy fired the taser?  That would tend to mitigate his fear of bodily harm as the motive.  Was it clear he was not going to be injured by the taser when her fired - or was it just too bang-bang quick an event to attribute that knowledge to the cop?  Instant replay is nice, but this was in real time.  

Was the  cop outside of the effective range of the taser when he fired his pistol at the fleeing guy?  15 feet is about the max, and that is not presumed to be done aiming while hauling ass and turning.   Were the officer's post-shoot actions more in line with that of a person protecting himself from great bodily harm - or more in line with that of a person who was angry at the guy for running away, and thus a mirror into his mental state at the time of the shooting?   

Hell, cops seem to get off all of the time.   I'm not saying he won't.    I'm saying that it is not as cut and dry as some think.   And that having a taser in his hand may not be the total defense that some seen to suggest. 

 

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-3-21

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23 , a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.

(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:

(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1 , respectively; and

(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion.

You put a very high standard on those cops.  This is a Monday morning quarterback situation.   
 

12 jurors unanimously finding the cop didn’t have a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury — I don’t think it got there. 

[ImissWallyPryor 9045]

nm

Edited June 19, 2020 by ImissWallyPryor

[dcar00 14028]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You put a very high standard on those cops.  This is a Monday morning quarterback situation.   
 

12 jurors unanimously finding the cop didn’t have a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury — I don’t think it got there. 

we need train to shoot to wound and if a guy with a weapon doesn't want to be arrested you just let him go and pick him up later.

[Iceman 2639]

seems like a wound was achieved.

[workswithseed 2033]

Apparently the step-mother of the cop was fired from her job. Why?

[scottsins 1953]

I firmly believe leftist DAs are over-charging cops in the hope that they are acquitted because they want violent civil unrest. Civility won’t aid their agenda. I told my wife right after the George Floyd video that it looks like 3rd degree murder, which was the original charge. When it was changed to 2nd degree, it fit that narrative.

Is your theory about “leftist DA’s” deliberately trying to have cops walk away unscathed, as a result of their over-charging, in order to spark violence? If so, WOW. They may be politically motivated to “go for more”, but your explanation is literally not even fathomable, because you ignore how LESSER INCLUDED CHARGES work in Minnesota.

I won’t get into the details since most people here are familiar, but if you are saying that Floyd’s killer is going to walk because he was charged with 2nd degree, just name a dollar amount and we can book this wager however you want. They could up it to the most severe charge that they have on the books and he STILL isn’t walking out of that courtroom a free man.

[scottsins 1953]

3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/body-cam-footage-officer-who-shot-brooks-begs-him-to-stay-alive-mr-brooks-keep-breathing-keep-breathing-for-me?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

 

While performing CPR, former Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe begged for Rayshard Brooks to “keep breathing,” body camera footage reveals.

“Mr. Brooks, keep breathing,” Rolfe, 27, can be heard saying in the footage. “Keep breathing for me.”

“The jerky body-cam footage captures him kneeling on the ground and administering CPR to the bleeding man while Brosnan looks on,” reports the Daily Mail, which published the footage. “Rolfe administered CPR until the ambulance arrived and can be heard repeatedly calling Mr. Brooks’ name as he tried to keep him alive.”

On Friday, a Wendy’s employee called the police after Brooks, under the influence of alcohol, passed out behind the wheel, blocking drive-through traffic.

“The officers ran Brooks through a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer that pegged Brooks’ blood alcohol concentration at .108%, according to body cam footage released by the Atlanta police department. The legal limit to drive is .08%,” The Daily Wire reported on the incident. “After cooperating for nearly half an hour, Brooks fought with the officers as they tried to place him in handcuffs. All three struggled and fell to the ground where Brooks managed to take Brosnan’s taser and escape the officers. Rolfe shot after Brooks fired the stolen taser at him.”

Rolfe was charged Wednesday with felony murder.

A close friend of Rolfe’s said the former officer did not want to shoot Brooks but felt no other choice to preserve his own life.

“Garrett didn’t want to do it,” said the friend, according to the Daily Mail. “He had been punched and was dazed. Brooks had gone to tase him and he said that he knew that if he went down Brooks might kill him.”

“[Rolfe] told me he fired a shot up above [Brooks’] head but he didn’t stop and so he fired twice more,” the source added, “He didn’t want to do it. There’s no hate in Garrett’s body. He doesn’t hate black. He doesn’t hate white. In that moment he was in fear for his life.”

Following the announcement of the highly controversial felony murder charge, Rolfe’s attorney said in a statement: “Officer Rolfe is well known to the courts and there is no compelling reason to bring any charges against them before the GBI has completed its investigation and published its findings.”

In a separate statement, the attorney for Devin Brosnan, Rolfe’s partner, ripped Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard for the “rush to misjudgment.”

“The decision to initiate charges by the Fulton County DA’s office is irrational and obviously based on factors which should have nothing to do with the proper administration of justice,” the attorney said in a blistering rebuke of the DA. “This was not a rush to judgment. This was a rush to misjudgment.”

I have no issue with the conclusion that Brooks was under the influence, but I would point out that the “breathalyzer” test referenced is not admissible in court at all, because it does not meet minimal standards of reliability and accuracy.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 hours ago, scottsins said:

I have no issue with the conclusion that Brooks was under the influence, but I would point out that the “breathalyzer” test referenced is not admissible in court at all, because it does not meet minimal standards of reliability and accuracy.

He was on something.  I’ll bet the tox screen shows a lot more than just alcohol.  

[Lechuza 31]

Apparently the step-mother of the cop was fired from her job. Why?

Both of those cops are going to get nice settlements from the City because neither of them should have been fired, especially the one who didn't pull the trigger.

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13010]

This looks like a scene from a parody movie. Bethel, OH.

[Homercles 10205]

6 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

This looks like a scene from a parody movie. Bethel, OH.

No that’s exactly what I picture Bethel, OH to look like actually.  

[Guest Lobo]

All politics aside, if I showed you a photograph of just that guy in the blue shirt in the middle and told you he committed a mid-level mass shooting a couple of years ago, you'd believe me.  He looks exactly like every other mass murderer of the last 20 years.  There is nothing behind those incel eyes except angst and frustration and he's gonna take it out on some innocent people one day.  I'm deadly serious about that part. 

What I'm only partially serious about is apparently their movement does have a leader...Kuato.  And he's about to come out of that woman in the pink's stomach.  

[Murfdogg21 4412]

^judgy much based on how a person looks?

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

^judgy much based on how a person looks?

Where did I discuss his looks?  I made a call about what I see/don't see in his eyes.  You really don't size people up by their eyes?  I guess I'm the only one. 

 

[SHOOTER12 8787]

15 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

^judgy much based on how a person looks?

You look like a troublemaker to me son....🤔

[SHOOTER12 8787]

18 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Where did I discuss his looks?  I made a call about what I see/don't see in his eyes.  You really don't size people up by their eyes?  I guess I'm the only one. 

 

The eyes are the window to the soul.

[Burt Macklin 18989]

19 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

firmly believe leftist DAs are over-charging cops in the hope that they are acquitted because they want violent civil unrest. Civility won’t aid their agenda. I told my wife right after the George Floyd video that it looks like 3rd degree murder, which was the original charge. When it was changed to 2nd degree, it fit that narrative.

 

If you consider second degree for Chauvin as over-charging, then there’s no helping you. It’s a perfectly reasonable charge given the circumstances, and you also clearly don’t understand how charges work if you think bringing that charge along with lesser charges will somehow lead to acquittal. 

And the idea the DA is shooting for an acquittal to cause violent civil unrest is nonsensical. If that DA somehow led to Chauvin getting acquitted, their career would be over immediately, so why exactly would they want that? Your post reaches levels of hair-brained conspiracy that are hard to fathom. 

[Guest Lobo]

Business idea:  Fortune Cookie expressions/phrases/idioms delivered digitally to your phone after your meal and read by the great Sam Elliott.  And the lottery numbers on back shouted out to you by the actress who played Estelle Costanza.  I'd eat every meal at that place.  

 

[Gatorubet 30082]

A whole lot of armchair QBs definitively judging a cop for firing on a guy who quickly turned at him with a weapon and who just seconds earlier tried to beat the shit out of him and his partner. 
We have a lot of responsible gun owners and CHL folks on here. If someone who is a threat or that has already engaged you turned quickly and pointed something at you, your wife, or child, would you hesitate to fire on them, honestly? Hindsight and slow motion camera say “dumbass cop it was obviously just the taser and he didn’t have another weapon on him! And weren’t you counting taser discharges previously fired during that split second before drawing your weapon! Dumbass murderer enjoy your prison rape!”
It was the cop’s job to pursue him. The deceased turned around quickly and drew a weapon toward the cop. In real time it’s hard for me to say I would’ve done anything different. I’m sure if the cop knew how it would turn out, he’d have not pursued. Shit he’d have called in sick that shift. It’s not like he went to work looking to hunt POC.
Less than lethal, but more effective than taser, weapons may be the way to go moving forward. It seems that tasers are too often ineffective at disabling people resisting arrest. At the same time, this issue could use a better martyr than a felon trying to avoid jail time by fighting cops, stealing their taser, running, then turning back and pointing a weapon at a cop in a dark parking lot. 

Umm....he had already been patted down. Don’t change the facts to some other scenario with fear of a gun.

[Gatorubet 30082]

A close friend of Rolfe’s said the former officer did not want to shoot Brooks but felt no other choice to preserve his own life.

“[Rolfe] told me he fired a shot up above [brooks’] head but he didn’t stop and so he fired twice more,”

One of these things is not like the other.

[Parliament 14120]

After the protest/riot of a few weeks ago, Fargo is determined to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Saying the city is in "imminent danger of suffering civil disturbance, disorder, riot" and other threats from OneFargo and Black Lives Matter protests this weekend, Mayor Tim Mahoney issued an emergency declaration Wednesday, June 17, and later rescinded a section related to a ban on carrying weapons.

At the same time, OneFargo organizers struck back, refusing to believe the findings of an internal police probe into former deputy chief Todd Osmundson's actions on May 30, and condemned "Mayor Mahoney's media campaign to discredit OneFargo and BLM-FM."

Both the emergency declaration and OneFargo's statements against the internal police investigation point toward increasingly strained relations between city leaders and protesters, who are planning marches Friday and Saturday to raise awareness of fatal police encounters.

Mahoney said evidence exists that some protesters intend to carry weapons during Friday's protest. On Friday, protesters plan to gather in Island Park at 10 a.m. and march to Fargo City Hall to deliver a letter of intent that would begin police and social reforms. Protesters expect Mahoney to sign the letter, but saying he has no final draft, Mahoney said he will not sign it.

https://www.inforum.com/incoming/6540731-Fargo-mayor-declares-emergency-ahead-of-OneFargo-Black-Lives-Matter-marches

[Parliament 14120]

Vox is rather hackish, but they might be right with this.  And if so, many of our problems of today are the result of a buncha...Karens.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, a women’s group that was formed in 1894, led the effort to revise Confederate history at the turn of the 20th century. That effort has a name: the Lost Cause. It was a campaign to portray Confederate leaders and soldiers as heroic, and it targeted the minds and identities of children growing up in the South so they would develop a personal attachment to the Confederate cause.

https://www.bunkhistory.org/exhibits/3/10/1246

ETA

Wiki suggests the above is accurate:

During the period 1880–1910, the UDC was one of many groups that celebrated Lost Cause mythology and presented "a romanticized view of the slavery era" in the United States.[3] The UDC promoted white Southern solidarity, allowing white Southerners to refer to a mythical past in order to legitimize racial segregation and white supremacy.[44] The UDC worked to "define southern identity around images from an Old South that portrayed slavery as benign and slaves as happy and a Reconstruction that portrayed blacks as savage and immoral.".[45] Their lost cause narrative was codified in their “Measuring Rod to Test Text Books and Reference Books,” [46] which UDC chapters unanimously endorsed and used to infect their false, white supremacist views in school curriculum across the South.[47] Historian James M. McPherson has said that the present-day UDC promotes a white supremacist and neo-Confederate agenda,[48] saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy

Edited June 19, 2020 by Parliament

[Brisketexan 104531]

6 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Vox is rather hackish, but they might be right with this.  And if so, many of our problems of today are the result of a buncha...Karens.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, a women’s group that was formed in 1894, led the effort to revise Confederate history at the turn of the 20th century. That effort has a name: the Lost Cause. It was a campaign to portray Confederate leaders and soldiers as heroic, and it targeted the minds and identities of children growing up in the South so they would develop a personal attachment to the Confederate cause.

https://www.bunkhistory.org/exhibits/3/10/1246

ETA

Wiki suggests the above is accurate:

During the period 1880–1910, the UDC was one of many groups that celebrated Lost Cause mythology and presented "a romanticized view of the slavery era" in the United States.[3] The UDC promoted white Southern solidarity, allowing white Southerners to refer to a mythical past in order to legitimize racial segregation and white supremacy.[44] The UDC worked to "define southern identity around images from an Old South that portrayed slavery as benign and slaves as happy and a Reconstruction that portrayed blacks as savage and immoral.".[45] Their lost cause narrative was codified in their “Measuring Rod to Test Text Books and Reference Books,” [46] which UDC chapters unanimously endorsed and used to infect their false, white supremacist views in school curriculum across the South.[47] Historian James M. McPherson has said that the present-day UDC promotes a white supremacist and neo-Confederate agenda,[48] saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy

As someone who grew up in the South (and yes, Houston is part of the South, at least when it comes to matters confederate), this is absolutely true.  It's what I was exposed to, and as a young person, it's what I BELIEVED.  I remember arguing that the war was about "states rights," I wrote a paper in 5th grade about what a great and honorable man Robert E. Lee was (and the source material I had access to was glowing).  I remember touring a plantation home in Mississippi where the lovely banister had marks on it where a Union soldier had whacked it with his saber, and half the tour muttered "yankee bastards."  Etc. ad infinitum.

The Civil War and the confederacy, as a historical and cultural item in the South, was an orchestrated lie for the better part of a century, and we've got a lot of work to overcome the results of that lie permeating everything, including our education system.

[Underdog 28442]

3 hours ago, Casual Encounter said:

This looks like a scene from a parody movie. Bethel, OH.

"Warrior" would shit his britches if that cop pulled his gun on him.  And no doubt he'd use Edna next to him as a human shield. 

[ImissWallyPryor 9045]

2 hours ago, Burt Macklin said:

If you consider second degree for Chauvin as over-charging, then there’s no helping you. It’s a perfectly reasonable charge given the circumstances, and you also clearly don’t understand how charges work if you think bringing that charge along with lesser charges will somehow lead to acquittal. 

And the idea the DA is shooting for an acquittal to cause violent civil unrest is nonsensical. If that DA somehow led to Chauvin getting acquitted, their career would be over immediately, so why exactly would they want that? Your post reaches levels of hair-brained conspiracy that are hard to fathom. 

Saying that I firmly BELIEVE that was a bit hyperbolic, I admit. What I should have said is I WONDER if these DAs are the ones who want to sow chaos and discord as a means to dismantle this country. If they are true committed leftists, they might see it as noble to take a chance at acquittal, even if it costs them their job.

When the Floyd video came out, I sent it to my wife with the comment that it looked like 2nd or 3rd degree murder. When he was initially charged with 3rd degree, I thought that it was probably the smart thing to do because isn’t easy to get 12 people to unanimously convict a cop. He will probably die in prison under either charge, even if he isn’t shanked.

Then, when it was upgraded to 2nd degree, I thought that the DA has to know that he just increased the odds of a hung jury and the remote possibility of an outright acquittal. Even a hung jury will incite the mob. The important thing was to get a quick and easy conviction as even a lengthy deliberation would serve as justification for the mob.

When the Atlanta DA (who is facing corruption charges as well as an uphill te-election campaign) charged the cop with murder for clearly defending himself, I really began to think that this guy just doesn’t give a damn what happens and might even want to see things burn. It may sound hyperbolic, but there are leftist local governments and DAs in several major cities (like Philadelphia) who are releasing prisoners and refusing to prosecute offenders, and it’s just not low-level drug offenders. I don’t think they are all doing it to promote justice. I’m in favor of fines instead of jail time for many low level offenses, but this is crazy.

So yes, I do think some people in power are trying to bring this country down. I may have been a bit overly dramatic in my post, but that’s what happens when things are written with thumbs. 

[Gatorubet 30082]

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1383582/harwell-v-state/

[Gatorubet 30082]

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1383582/harwell-v-state/

“Whether a weapon is deadly or one likely to cause serious bodily injury is a question for the jury, which may consider all the circumstances surrounding the weapon and the manner in which it was used. Williams v. State, 127 Ga.App. 386(1), 193 S.E.2d 633 (1972).”

[EuroHorn 3204]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

“Whether a weapon is deadly or one likely to cause serious bodily injury is a question for the jury, which may consider all the circumstances surrounding the weapon and the manner in which it was used. Williams v. State, 127 Ga.App. 386(1), 193 S.E.2d 633 (1972).”

Makes the Atlanta DA sound even more foolish for the statement he made regarding the taser as being a deadly weapon under Georgia state law.  Without qualification.

[Huckleberry 32694]

41 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

Saying that I firmly BELIEVE that was a bit hyperbolic, I admit. What I should have said is I WONDER if these DAs are the ones who want to sow chaos and discord as a means to dismantle this country. If they are true committed leftists, they might see it as noble to take a chance at acquittal, even if it costs them their job.

When the Floyd video came out, I sent it to my wife with the comment that it looked like 2nd or 3rd degree murder. When he was initially charged with 3rd degree, I thought that it was probably the smart thing to do because isn’t easy to get 12 people to unanimously convict a cop. He will probably die in prison under either charge, even if he isn’t shanked.

Then, when it was upgraded to 2nd degree, I thought that the DA has to know that he just increased the odds of a hung jury and the remote possibility of an outright acquittal. Even a hung jury will incite the mob. The important thing was to get a quick and easy conviction as even a lengthy deliberation would serve as justification for the mob.

When the Atlanta DA (who is facing corruption charges as well as an uphill te-election campaign) charged the cop with murder for clearly defending himself, I really began to think that this guy just doesn’t give a damn what happens and might even want to see things burn. It may sound hyperbolic, but there are leftist local governments and DAs in several major cities (like Philadelphia) who are releasing prisoners and refusing to prosecute offenders, and it’s just not low-level drug offenders. I don’t think they are all doing it to promote justice. I’m in favor of fines instead of jail time for many low level offenses, but this is crazy.

So yes, I do think some people in power are trying to bring this country down. I may have been a bit overly dramatic in my post, but that’s what happens when things are written with thumbs. 

That's a lot of words to completely miss the point. Two separate people pointed out "lesser included charges" as something you need to read up on.

You, like plenty of people throughout history, have created a fantasy in your head so you can be scared of something and blame it on the others (leftists in your case). You should be ashamed of this innate need to live in fear of something but instead you try to recruit others to join you. It's a story as old as time and the funniest part is that you've probably noticed plenty of other people falling for the exact same con but can't see it in yourself. 

[Burt Macklin 18989]

1 hour ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

When the Floyd video came out, I sent it to my wife with the comment that it looked like 2nd or 3rd degree murder. When he was initially charged with 3rd degree, I thought that it was probably the smart thing to do because isn’t easy to get 12 people to unanimously convict a cop. He will probably die in prison under either charge, even if he isn’t shanked.

Then, when it was upgraded to 2nd degree, I thought that the DA has to know that he just increased the odds of a hung jury and the remote possibility of an outright acquittal. Even a hung jury will incite the mob. The important thing was to get a quick and easy conviction as even a lengthy deliberation would serve as justification for the mob.

You seem to have a lot of your facts wrong. The Minneapolis DA only charged with third degree, then it was given over to the Minn AG who added second-degree. 
 

I’m no Minnesota criminal law expert, but I don’t think you have the law correct either, which undercuts your theory. 
1. from what I’ve seen they can and have brought both third and second-degree murder charges, so adding second degree does not increase the risk of a hung jury.

2. In what is an issue with certain penal codes across the country, 2nd degree is actually easier to prove because it’s basically the felony murder rule. Essentially all they have to do is prove Chauvin assaulted Floyd (close to a slam dunk) and that his death was proximately caused by the assault (also basically a slam dunk). Third degree requires proving cause of death by “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.”). Both are likely attainable, but of the two, third-degree is actually harder to prove so adding second-degree reduces the chance of a hung jury. 

 

1 hour ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

When the Atlanta DA (who is facing corruption charges as well as an uphill te-election campaign) charged the cop with murder for clearly defending himself, I really began to think that this guy just doesn’t give a damn what happens and might even want to see things burn. It may sound hyperbolic, but there are leftist local governments and DAs in several major cities (like Philadelphia) who are releasing prisoners and refusing to prosecute offenders, and it’s just not low-level drug offenders. I don’t think they are all doing it to promote justice. I’m in favor of fines instead of jail time for many low level offenses, but this is crazy.

I agree the Atlanta DA has overstepped his grounds, but that seems pretty clearly a desperate political move to save his own ass, rather than a conspiratorial movement by DAs united under the leftist cause to sacrifice their career in order to incite cultural violence. I find it funny that you use him as the prime example of someone willing to sacrifice his career for the cause when he’s really  doing it for the exact opposite purpose: self-preservation. 
 

As for your generic claims of leftist DAs releasing prisoners and refusing to prosecute high-level criminals as part of a united leftist movement, you’ll have to show an actual factual basis on that,  considering the inaccuracies behind your conspiratorial claims in the above situations. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Burt Macklin

[TwiceHorn 31229]

9 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That's a lot of words to completely miss the point. Two separate people pointed out "lesser included charges" as something you need to read up on.

You, like plenty of people throughout history, have created a fantasy in your head so you can be scared of something and blame it on the others (leftists in your case). You should be ashamed of this innate need to live in fear of something but instead you try to recruit others to join you. It's a story as old as time and the funniest part is that you've probably noticed plenty of other people falling for the exact same con but can't see it in yourself. 

The idea of "leftist DAs" is a farce, until recently.  Just because they have a D by their name doesn't mean they're pursuing any sort of leftist or progressive or sensible agenda.  They're as reliably "tough on crime" as everyone else because Americans apparently walk around in complete fear of criminals.  See, e.g. Amy Klobuchar specifically, Kamala Harris more generally.

In some states, it is possible to "overcharge" and as a result get an acquittal because lesser included offenses are not given to the jury automatically.  Thus, the jury is left with the choice of finding someone guilty of a charge the evidence doesn't support, or acquitting. The defense is not going to ask for a lesser-included charge in that instance in a state like Texas, where lesser-included offenses are only charged to the jury if requested by one party.

In Minnesota, however, in homicide cases, it appears that the jury is automatically charged with the lesser-included homicide crimes.  So if someone is charged with Second Degree Murder in the the indictment, the jury will get to consider Third Degree, as well without further action by the prosecution or defense.

 

[ImissWallyPryor 9045]

24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That's a lot of words to completely miss the point. Two separate people pointed out "lesser included charges" as something you need to read up on.

You, like plenty of people throughout history, have created a fantasy in your head so you can be scared of something and blame it on the others (leftists in your case). You should be ashamed of this innate need to live in fear of something but instead you try to recruit others to join you. It's a story as old as time and the funniest part is that you've probably noticed plenty of other people falling for the exact same con but can't see it in yourself. 

This is the guy who upped the charges from 3rd degree to 2nd degree. You’re right, there is no reason to be concerned. Antifa only wants to fight fascism.

And here he is with the president of the Portland Antifa chapter. 

I’ll let you have the last word. This thread has gone CR, and I’ve contributed enough to that. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by ImissWallyPryor

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Second degree seems like an appropriate charge to me.

Easy prosecution.  Just roll the tape.  Maybe add a timer running next to it.

 

 

[Burt Macklin 18989]

6 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

This is the guy who upped the charges from 3rd degree to 2nd degree. You’re right, there is no reason to be concerned. Antifa only wants to fight fascism.

I’ll let you have the last word. This thread has gone CR, and I’ve contributed enough to that. 

Again, they added second-degree, not replaced third with it, and second is easier to prove, but I see you’re going to walk away now that you’ve been proven wrong and keep spouting your nonsensical theories with no basis in reality elsewhere. 

[JBJ 3648]

 

1 hour ago, Burt Macklin said:

2. In what is an issue with certain penal codes across the country, 2nd degree is actually easier to prove because it’s basically the felony murder rule. Essentially all they have to do is prove Chauvin assaulted Floyd (close to a slam dunk) and that his death was proximately caused by the assault (also basically a slam dunk). Third degree requires proving cause of death by “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.”). Both are likely attainable, but of the two, third-degree is actually harder to prove so adding second-degree reduces the chance of a hung jury. 

No.  I'm not even quite sure which wrong point to address first.

Edited June 19, 2020 by JBJ

[Burt Macklin 18989]

19 minutes ago, JBJ said:

 

No.  I'm not even quite sure which wrong point to address first.

What am I wrong about?

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

Saying that I firmly BELIEVE that was a bit hyperbolic, I admit. What I should have said is I WONDER if these DAs are the ones who want to sow chaos and discord as a means to dismantle this country. If they are true committed leftists, they might see it as noble to take a chance at acquittal, even if it costs them their job.

When the Floyd video came out, I sent it to my wife with the comment that it looked like 2nd or 3rd degree murder. When he was initially charged with 3rd degree, I thought that it was probably the smart thing to do because isn’t easy to get 12 people to unanimously convict a cop. He will probably die in prison under either charge, even if he isn’t shanked.

Then, when it was upgraded to 2nd degree, I thought that the DA has to know that he just increased the odds of a hung jury and the remote possibility of an outright acquittal. Even a hung jury will incite the mob. The important thing was to get a quick and easy conviction as even a lengthy deliberation would serve as justification for the mob.

When the Atlanta DA (who is facing corruption charges as well as an uphill te-election campaign) charged the cop with murder for clearly defending himself, I really began to think that this guy just doesn’t give a damn what happens and might even want to see things burn. It may sound hyperbolic, but there are leftist local governments and DAs in several major cities (like Philadelphia) who are releasing prisoners and refusing to prosecute offenders, and it’s just not low-level drug offenders. I don’t think they are all doing it to promote justice. I’m in favor of fines instead of jail time for many low level offenses, but this is crazy.

So yes, I do think some people in power are trying to bring this country down. I may have been a bit overly dramatic in my post, but that’s what happens when things are written with thumbs. 

what a bunch of fucking horse shit. 

[workswithseed 2033]

On 6/17/2020 at 7:27 AM, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Wow.. what a hot head. All over a statue. It was At that moment Stephen Ray Baca forgot to keep it real

https://www.rt.com/usa/492319-protesters-george-washington-statue-portland/

"Activists in Portland have torn down a statue of George Washington after covering its head with a flaming US flag during the latest night of protests sweeping the city.

At roughly 11pm local time on Thursday, a group of some 30 to 40 protesters initially vandalized the statue, located on the lawn of the German American Society in Northeast Portland, with graffiti which read: “You’re on native land.” They called the first president of the US a “genocidal colonist.” The group later brought the statue down with ropes."

Video of it being torn down the link. I just thought of your comment about it being just a statue, but not directed at you per say.

Edited June 19, 2020 by workswithseed

[Gatorubet 30082]

This is the guy who upped the charges from 3rd degree to 2nd degree. You’re right, there is no reason to be concerned. Antifa only wants to fight fascism.

Laughable. Everyone knows it is George Soros.