Minneapolis Cop Murders A Black Man

[JBJ 3647]

32 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

What am I wrong about?

2nd degree being easier.  The explanation of the felony murder rule. Misleading explanation of the implied malice requirement.

For this case 3rd degree would be "he acted this way knowing that it was dangerous."

2nd degree would be "he acted this way knowing that it was dangerous because he was trying to kill George Floyd."

[workswithseed 2027]

https://youtu.be/uTTxkDFVUfM

 

Seems YouTube won't let me imbed the video?

[Burt Macklin 18984]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

2nd degree being easier.  The explanation of the felony murder rule. Misleading explanation of the implied malice requirement.

For this case 3rd degree would be "he acted this way knowing that it was dangerous."

2nd degree would be "he acted this way knowing that it was dangerous because he was trying to kill George Floyd."

I think you’re stating what’s generally understood about 2nd and 3rd degree murder but not specific to Minnesota. Minnesota has basically written felony murder into its second degree murder definition and it does not require any intent to kill.  And as for third degree, the quoted language in my post was right from the statute, so your characterization of 3rd degree in Minn. isn’t correct. The extra requirements of “depraved mind, without regard for human life” are part of what make it tricky and more difficult than 2nd degree IMO. 
 

I think this is the article I first read or close to it, but it explains the standards and why 2nd degree is easier with some quotes from criminal law experts.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1218856

 

I’m on a phone so not sure how this will format, but here’s the language for 2nd and 3rd:

 2nd:

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

Third Degree:
 

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

(a) 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.

 

[Not a cat 5612]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

 

Twicehorn is correct re lesser included charges, see https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/631.14

Just wanted to take my one and only opportunity to flex the fact that I'm probably the only licensed MN attorney on the surl. Though I'm not a criminal law guy so actually had to look this statute up once the debate started a couple of weeks ago.

[Dahobbs 17417]

13 minutes ago, JBJ said:

2nd degree being easier.  The explanation of the felony murder rule. Misleading explanation of the implied malice requirement.

For this case 3rd degree would be "he acted this way knowing that it was dangerous."

2nd degree would be "he acted this way knowing that it was dangerous because he was trying to kill George Floyd."

How is he wrong? It sounded like a fairly accurate description of the felony murder rule (and I personally think it is a terrible rule). 

Minnesota does include felony murder in second degree murder. Here is the statute: 

Quote

 

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

* * *

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.

 

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

 

[TwiceHorn 31161]

Felony murder has less application here than the Georgia case, where chasing him down and threatening him with deadly weapons may have provided a predicate offense to murder.  Usually, an assault gone wrong doesn't turn something into felony murder, some other felony is required.

In the case of the Minnesota statutes, second degree murder occurs when you have an intent to kill without premeditation (premeditation being the missing element for first degree murder).  There is also a "felony murder" provision that does not require intent, but death in the course of committing another felony.  https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19 

Third degree murder does not require intention to kill, but rather a "depraved mind," which means doing something evincing recklessness or gross negligence toward human life.  https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31161]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

How is he wrong? It sounded like a fairly accurate description of the felony murder rule (and I personally think it is a terrible rule). 

Minnesota does include felony murder in second degree murder. Here is the statute: 

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

 

Agreed it's a very nasty rule.  Should be abolished.

[atomheartbevo 89347]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

Yeah, it's fascinating/horrifying what a lot of us were taught even up into the 70s/80s (and I'm not talking about armybrat - I'm talking about the 1980s, not 1880s).

The various declarations of secession put out by the states in 1860/1861 justifying secession were all 100% upfront that it was about slavery.

Third paragraph of Texas's Declaration of Causes:

Spoiler

 

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former as one of the co-equal States thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

---------------

 

I was never taught that in Southern schools in the '80s, just that it was states rights, although I was in North Dakota for part of junior high, and they taught it as the Northerners liberating the slaves.  But in the other schools I was in, you would never have had the teachers read out the declarations passed by the various Southern states that specifically called out the North wanting to end slavery and the South believing they had a right to their slaves.

I think that's a part of the atmosphere that we have here in 2020 that has led us firmly to what we see in this thread - we have a shit-ton of people in their 30s/40s and on up in the South, all races, who were taught the states' rights angle as kids.  

The flip side:  A shitload of people who did grow up being taught that are outraged with the killings, and some are even protesting.

Edited June 19, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[Brisketexan 104417]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The various declarations of secession put out by the states in 1860/1861 justifying secession were all 100% upfront that it was about slavery.

Yep.

I didn't read (or really even see available anywhere easy to find) any of the various declarations of secession until they became widely available on the internets.  Then I read them.  And said "well, that pretty much settles that, don't it?"  I mean, there was no subtlety about it.  Slavery and the subservience of "the negro race" was the reason.

[JBJ 3647]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Felony murder has less application here than the Georgia case, where chasing him down and threatening him with deadly weapons may have provided a predicate offense to murder.  Usually, an assault gone wrong doesn't turn something into felony murder, some other felony is required.

In the case of the Minnesota statutes, second degree murder occurs when you have an intent to kill without premeditation (premeditation being the missing element for first degree murder).  There is also a "felony murder" provision that does not require intent, but death in the course of committing another felony.  https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19 

Third degree murder does not require intention to kill, but rather a "depraved mind," which means doing something evincing recklessness or gross negligence toward human life.  https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

Basically all this.  I will add that "depraved mind" isn't a character trait.  The act itself is what is depraved.  An honorable philanthropist throwing large stones off an overpass is still committing an act with a depraved mind.

Edited June 19, 2020 by JBJ

[scottsins 1952]

7 hours 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.

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. 

What a convenient bitch-assed way to bow out of the thread after multiple posts not coming anywhere NEAR addressing the legal analysis which refutes your theory.  You didn't just ghost the thread.  You set of some false martyrish "high road".  Weak

[Parliament 14106]

NM

 

[ChickenSandwich 9797]

9 hours ago, workswithseed said:

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.

Fuck those idiots. 

[workswithseed 2027]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Fuck those idiots. 

Yeah, I was fucking pissed. 

[EuroHorn 3204]

Here’s the entire sequence of events on body cam

 

 

 

 

[workswithseed 2027]

4 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Fuck those idiots. 

They just brought down Ulysses' statue in San Francisco.

[landman 559]

18 hours ago, workswithseed said:

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.

Doesn't anyone with ties to slavery need to be removed from history?  Washington owned slaves - need to rename DC, rename the university, and remove the monument, as well.  Take him off the dollar bill and the quarter.  Burn Mt. Vernon.

[Brothahorn 10085]

On 6/19/2020 at 9:16 AM, 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

 

On 6/19/2020 at 9:26 AM, Brisketexan said:

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.

And then Hollywood came along and helped push the narrative even more. 

I'm a fan of old movies and you can definitely see Southern Sympathy in movies like 'the horse soldiers' and 'virginia city'. Being a traitor to your country and fighting for slavery was made to be noble.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Brothahorn

[dcar00 14023]

6 hours ago, workswithseed said:

They just brought down Ulysses' statue in San Francisco.

this is a old white man thing...it isn't about the confederacy

[workswithseed 2027]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

this is a old white man thing...it isn't about the confederacy

An*

[Johnny Sack 8397]

6 hours ago, workswithseed said:

They just brought down Ulysses' statue in San Francisco.

It isn’t about race for them.  These people are straight up Marxist that hate America.

[South Austin 52026]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

An*

Fucker didn’t even capitalize and use punctuation.

[VABuckeye 2472]

Just now, South Austin said:

Fucker didn’t even capitalize and use punctuation.

What is the world coming to?

[dcar00 14023]

6 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

What is the world coming to?

ha.  was gonna go with white cracker thing and forgot to change the "an".   capitalization is an outdated function used to control the masses.

 

[dcar00 14023]

15 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It isn’t about race for them.  These people are straight up Marxist that hate America.

correct and America is "old white man"

[Gatorubet 30045]

9 hours ago, EuroHorn said:

Here’s the entire sequence of events on body cam

 

 

 

 

Guy fired a taser (the second deploy) over the cop's head while running, and then turned around and continued to run.   He was completely turned around running when he was shot in the back two times.  45:47     Or at least my biased view.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Gatorubet

[Johnny Sack 8397]

You expect a cop to keep an accurate count of taser deployments in the split second between having a taser fired and miss his head and him shooting the suspect?

A fairly empaneled jury of twelve probably won’t unanimously agree he didn’t have a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death beyond a reasonable doubt.  

[Braff Zacklin 13388]

Having reviewed all the extended footage, I'll stand on my original comments: Rayshard Brooks was executed because the cops were angry and humiliated.

Mr. Brooks is no martyr here. He's clearly guilty of public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer of the law. Probably driving under the influence, as well.

The cops, however, are guilty of being terrible at their jobs. They were both larger, seemingly younger, and certainly more lucid than Mr. Brooks, yet they didn't keep him restrained or their weapons secure.

Yes, Mr. Brooks half-heartedly pointed a Taser in the general direction of a pursuing officer as he was (what I will generously categorize as) jogging away from them. Mr. Brooks wasn't going to go very far, so it doesn't seem like the need to cease his progress was dire and immediate.

If people are going to spuriously argue that a Taser is a deadly weapon and that its use justifies lethal force, then those people should also lobby that any police officer who has employed a Taser in situations that did not justify lethal force should have attempted murder charges brought against them.

As I've stated in other threads, being a police officer is a damned difficult job. It is not for most of us. An effective public servant needs the self restraint to not only refrain from abusing the power and responsibility that comes with the role, but also to keep a level head during moments of crisis instead of looking for an excuse to use deadly force.

It does not appear these two officers possessed either.

That some of you can observe footage from this event and rubber stamp the actions of the two police officers in question is puzzling. Again, Brooks is no saint. He deserved a healthy amount of jail and/or prison time, but in no way were his actions justifiable cause for immediate execution.

[immortal13 4059]

13 minutes ago, Braff Zacklin said:

Having reviewed all the extended footage, I'll stand on my original comments: Rayshard Brooks was executed because the cops were angry and humiliated.

Mr. Brooks is no martyr here. He's clearly guilty of public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer of the law. Probably driving under the influence, as well.

The cops, however, are guilty of being terrible at their jobs. They were both larger, seemingly younger, and certainly more lucid than Mr. Brooks, yet they didn't keep him restrained or their weapons secure.

Yes, Mr. Brooks half-heartedly pointed a Taser in the general direction of a pursuing officer as he was (what I will generously categorize as) jogging away from them. Mr. Brooks wasn't going to go very far, so it doesn't seem like the need to cease his progress was dire and immediate.

If people are going to spuriously argue that a Taser is a deadly weapon and that its use justifies lethal force, then those people should also lobby that any police officer who has employed a Taser in situations that did not justify lethal force should have attempted murder charges brought against them.

As I've stated in other threads, being a police officer is a damned difficult job. It is not for most of us. An effective public servant needs the self restraint to not only refrain from abusing the power and responsibility that comes with the role, but also to keep a level head during moments of crisis instead of looking for an excuse to use deadly force.

It does not appear these two officers possessed either.

That some of you can observe footage from this event and rubber stamp the actions of the two police officers in question is puzzling. Again, Brooks is no saint. He deserved a healthy amount of jail and/or prison time, but in no way were his actions justifiable cause for immediate execution.

I stopped reading at "half-heartedly". Do you somehow know what his intentions were or what he was thinking? Your post in as stupid as it is long-winded. The cops did not shoot him until the suspect fired the taser. I don't care what kind of weapon you try to use against a cop, but as a general rule it usually will get you shot regardless of your skin tone. Instead of taking his DUI arrest like a man, he decided to put up a fight and it didn't end well for him. The cops were justified, whole-heartedly, in this incident. And I fucking hate cops.

[Braff Zacklin 13388]

3 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

I stopped reading at "half-heartedly". Do you somehow know what his intentions were or what he was thinking? Your post in as stupid as it is long-winded. The cops did not shoot him until the suspect fired the taser. I don't care what kind of weapon you try to use against a cop, but as a general rule it usually will get you shot regardless of your skin tone. Instead of taking his DUI arrest like a man, he decided to put up a fight and it didn't end well for him. The cops were justified, whole-heartedly, in this incident. And I fucking hate cops.

I never said nor implied race was a factor in the shooting. You invented that strawman.

I said "half-heartedly" because Brooks did not break stride, and he wasn't aiming down the "barrel."

If my posts are too long or my points too complicated for you to understand, you are free to resume your usual habit of stalking Derka.

[immortal13 4059]

2 minutes ago, Braff Zacklin said:

I never said nor implied race was a factor in the shooting. You invented that strawman.

I said "half-heartedly" because Brooks did not break stride, and he wasn't aiming down the "barrel."

If my posts are too long or my points too complicated for you to understand, you are free to resume your usual habit of stalking Derka.

Ok Derka sock

[Brothahorn 10085]

Having reviewed all the extended footage, I'll stand on my original comments: Rayshard Brooks was executed because the cops were angry and humiliated.
Mr. Brooks is no martyr here. He's clearly guilty of public intoxication, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer of the law. Probably driving under the influence, as well.
The cops, however, are guilty of being terrible at their jobs. They were both larger, seemingly younger, and certainly more lucid than Mr. Brooks, yet they didn't keep him restrained or their weapons secure.

Agreed

[workswithseed 2027]

24 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

 

Agreed

 

My guessing was that they were scared that they were gonna get called racist if they hurt him. 

[EuroHorn 3204]

 

Quote

An arrest warrant has been issued by Atlanta Fire Investigators for Ms. Natalie White," Atlanta Fire and Rescue said in a tweet. "She has been identified as a suspect in the arson fire that burned down the Wendy's Restaurant (125 University Ave) on Saturday, June 13th."

In the arrest video Brooks talks about a Natalie White being his girlfriend 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/us/natalie-white-atlanta-arson-wendys-rayshard-brooks/index.html
 

 

[Gatorubet 30045]

10 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

You expect a cop to keep an accurate count of taser deployments in the split second between having a taser fired and miss his head and him shooting the suspect?

A fairly empaneled jury of twelve probably won’t unanimously agree he didn’t have a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death beyond a reasonable doubt.  

You do not shoot people in the back who are running away and no longer a threat to you.   Shoot him if he is running at you.    You do not shoot people in the back who are no longer pointing a taser at you.   You have an argument if there is a reasonable chance that he will cause you death or great bodily harm.   Thinking that he is running to an MS-13 meeting at the Antifa club might scare you, but it is not reasonable to fear that.      And yes, a panel of Johnny Sack or Swamfortexas  clones will in fact acquit.    But the question is not about what he did in the past.  You can't shoot him for tussling with you.   You can't shoot him for running with a stolen taser.   You can't shoot him after he deploys it and turns around.   Unless you  think that his resistance means that he deserves killing. 

 Unlike Little Bill,  deserves got nothing to do with it.  You can't kill him for what he did, just what he might do.   

I think that we should only hire cops who can count to two - and ones whose eyes and minds work well enough that they can process that a person running away with their back to them is - well -running away with their back to them.   We'll see.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Gatorubet

[Neonmoon 38127]

On 6/19/2020 at 9:26 AM, Brisketexan said:

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.

I was taught the same lie. The states rights lie. I believed it too. Young and dumb. 

[atomheartbevo 89347]

So.... Eskimo Pie is going to be renamed.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/business/eskimo-pie-ice-cream-name-change-trnd/index.html

I'm sticking to most of Surly being Eskimo brothers due to South Austin's mom.

But can anybody else think of any businesses or buildings or products with the word "Eskimo" in their name or title, that should be changed?  I'm sure there's a few out there that should maybe think about renaming their businesses or products.

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[workswithseed 2027]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

So.... Eskimo Pie is going to be renamed.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/business/eskimo-pie-ice-cream-name-change-trnd/index.html

I'm sticking to most of Surly being Eskimo brothers due to South Austin's mom.

But can anybody else think of any businesses or buildings or products with the word "Eskimo" in their name or title, that should be changed?  I'm sure there's a few out there that should maybe think about renaming their businesses or products.

 

Eskimo Joe, but I really don't like the idea of canceling Eskimos. They need representation.

[smoky 837]

So.... Eskimo Pie is going to be renamed.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/business/eskimo-pie-ice-cream-name-change-trnd/index.html
I'm sticking to most of Surly being Eskimo brothers due to South Austin's mom.
But can anybody else think of any businesses or buildings or products with the word "Eskimo" in their name or title, that should be changed?  I'm sure there's a few out there that should maybe think about renaming their businesses or products.
 

Shaggy long game

[atomheartbevo 89347]

3 minutes ago, smoky said:

Shaggy long game

Edited June 21, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[Burt Macklin 18984]

On 6/19/2020 at 2:41 PM, JBJ said:

Basically all this.  I will add that "depraved mind" isn't a character trait.  The act itself is what is depraved.  An honorable philanthropist throwing large stones off an overpass is still committing an act with a depraved mind.

Are you seriously still trying to claim you’re right? Literally everything you’ve said so far has been wrong. You had no clue Minnesota included felony murder under second degree and stated the completely wrong elements that would apply in the Chauvin case. On top of that, your point about assault not serving as the underlying felony is also wrong. The article I posted has a UMinn law professor saying third degree assault can serve as the underlying felony, which tracks the language of the statute which specifically states the felonies that don’t count, but doesn’t list assault. So their second-degree charge requires no proof of intent whatsoever and is absolutely easier to prove than third-degree.

So to bring this full circle, 

On 6/19/2020 at 1:16 PM, JBJ said:

2nd degree being easier.  The explanation of the felony murder rule. Misleading explanation of the implied malice requirement.

For this case 3rd degree would be "he acted this way knowing that it was dangerous."

2nd degree would be "he acted this way knowing that it was dangerous because he was trying to kill George Floyd."

 

On 6/19/2020 at 12:17 PM, JBJ said:

 

I'm not even quite sure which wrong point to address first.

 

[52-80 19062]

There's a ton of problems with policing that needs to be addressed: civil forfeiture, no-knock raids, war on drugs, false statements and perjury...

...and then you got edge-cases like this rayshaun brooks thing totally diluting the legitimacy of that campaign

 

 

[Brothahorn 10085]

My guessing was that they were scared that they were gonna get called racist if they hurt him. 

Nah, embarrassment and anger can make a killer out of anyone.

[Captainant 27266]

Racist ass cops are racists. Who knew??

 

https://www.startribune.com/minority-officers-kept-from-monitoring-chauvin-in-jail/571391442/

Eight minority Ramsey County corrections officers have filed discrimination charges with the state’s Department of Human Rights after they were barred from guarding or having any other contact with former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin last month.

Chauvin was booked at the county jail the same day he was charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.

As Chauvin arrived, all officers of color were ordered to a separate floor, and a supervisor told one of them that, because of their race, they would be a potential “liability” around Chauvin, according a copy of racial discrimination charges obtained by the Star Tribune.

“I understood that the decision to segregate us had been made because we could not be trusted to carry out our work responsibilities professionally around the high-profile inmate — solely because of the color of our skin,” wrote one acting sergeant, who is black. “I am not aware of a similar situation where white officers were segregated from an inmate.”

[Guest Lobo]

11 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

So.... Eskimo Pie is going to be renamed.  https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/business/eskimo-pie-ice-cream-name-change-trnd/index.html

I'm sticking to most of Surly being Eskimo brothers due to South Austin's mom.

But can anybody else think of any businesses or buildings or products with the word "Eskimo" in their name or title, that should be changed?  I'm sure there's a few out there that should maybe think about renaming their businesses or products.

 

The Eskimo Pie is exactly what this country needs right now, chocolate and vanilla coming together.  

"I am black.  I am white.  Life's an Eskimo Pie, let's take a bite!"

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/frank-sinatra-and-stevie-wonder-duet/3980169

[Parliament 14106]

Racist ass cops are racists. Who knew??
 
https://www.startribune.com/minority-officers-kept-from-monitoring-chauvin-in-jail/571391442/
Eight minority Ramsey County corrections officers have filed discrimination charges with the state’s Department of Human Rights after they were barred from guarding or having any other contact with former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin last month.
Chauvin was booked at the county jail the same day he was charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.
As Chauvin arrived, all officers of color were ordered to a separate floor, and a supervisor told one of them that, because of their race, they would be a potential “liability” around Chauvin, according a copy of racial discrimination charges obtained by the Star Tribune.
“I understood that the decision to segregate us had been made because we could not be trusted to carry out our work responsibilities professionally around the high-profile inmate — solely because of the color of our skin,” wrote one acting sergeant, who is black. “I am not aware of a similar situation where white officers were segregated from an inmate.”

Or maybe it was for their own protection? Chauvin kills black folks.

[Iceman 2628]

as a taxpayer, i'd sure be willing to let things play out for Chauvin in gen-pop, regardless of the guards and their race.

[Neonmoon 38127]

11 minutes ago, Iceman said:

as a taxpayer, i'd sure be willing to let things play out for Chauvin in gen-pop, regardless of the guards and their race.

Question. Why is it okay for regular Joe to get beat down and raped in prison, but when a cop or celebrity do something, they’re not allowed in gen pop?

[Iceman 2628]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Question. Why is it okay for regular Joe to get beat down and raped in prison, but when a cop or celebrity do something, they’re not allowed in gen pop?

Not sure.  It should be an added incentive to fly straight in their jobs, IMHO.

 

I am consistently "once you fuck up, you're fucked" kind of guy.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Iceman

[atomheartbevo 89347]

6 hours ago, Lobo said:

The Eskimo Pie is exactly what this country needs right now, chocolate and vanilla coming together.  

"I am black.  I am white.  Life's an Eskimo Pie, let's take a bite!"

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/frank-sinatra-and-stevie-wonder-duet/3980169

How do the Eskimos feel about it?   And how do they feel about their huts being associated with alkyhol?