The Trial of Derek Chauvin

[Pato del Muerto 52485]

38 minutes ago, threesheets said:

Next time I get thrown in a paddy wagon I'm going to do that.  

Fuck that, I’m going to demand to be released. 

[Brisketexan 105060]

Correct. I have to admit that while watching the first few minutes of the body cam footage I was skeptical of a guilty verdict because the footage corroborates the accounts of the accused. Or to clarify, there's enough there to sway one or more jurors. However, everything gets flipped upside down around the time the off duty EMS shows up on scene or maybe a few seconds before. The body cam footage shows Floyd not resisting arrest and hardly moving either as the onlookers are yelling at Chauvin to get off him and check his pulse etc. Where he was previously fidgeting a lot and kicking his legs, he is now motionless. That's when it became murder imo. Floyd was under control and not a threat to the officers. Someone else said it upthread and I completely agree: Chauvin was deliberately exerting more pressure Floyd's neck because of the protestations of the witnesses. It had nothing to do with George Floyd and everything to do with that fucking dirtbag cop's power trip over onlookers filming him and pleading with him to stop. 
He's a murderer. 

This is exactly what happened. Any human being who has even a passing familiarity with dealing with other human beings knows it. The apologists will try to explain it away, argue against it, etc. They’re pushing a lie, and we know it.

He murdered a man because fuck you, civilians, respect my authority. He’s a psychopath.

[BradInATX 9208]

Is the EMT a prosecutor's witness? If so, they did a terrible job of coaching her. She comes across as biased against Chauvin which isn't ideal. Boomers on the jury aren't going to like that.

[MissingInAction 25008]

11 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

He demanded to be taken out of the car, FWIW.

Lolwut. Fwiw

[Chico_SA 521]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

Is the EMT a prosecutor's witness? If so, they did a terrible job of coaching her. She comes across as biased against Chauvin which isn't ideal. Boomers on the jury aren't going to like that.

Are you a couple of days behind?

 

[conVINCEd 21469]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This is exactly what happened. Any human being who has even a passing familiarity with dealing with other human beings knows it. The apologists will try to explain it away, argue against it, etc. They’re pushing a lie, and we know it.

He murdered a man because fuck you, civilians, respect my authority. He’s a psychopath.

I don’t think killing him was the plan.  Punishing him for disrespecting his authority was the plan, and it went wrong, which can happen when the punishment is life threatening.  Assuming a diverse jury pool where there will be a few sympathetic to the defendant,  a compromise verdict of manslaughter with a stiff sentence for that crime would be an acceptable outcome to me. That won’t happen, but it’s what should happen.  

[Brisketexan 105060]

I don’t think killing him was the plan.  Punishing him for disrespecting his authority was the plan, and it went wrong, which can happen when the punishment is life threatening.  Assuming a diverse jury pool where there will be a few sympathetic to the defendant,  a compromise verdict of manslaughter with a stiff sentence for that crime would be an acceptable outcome to me. That won’t happen, but it’s what should happen.  

Chauvin decided that he didn’t care if he killed him - “if he dies, he dies” - his focus was on showing those civilians who their boss was. But he was also informed that he was killing Floyd....and then purposefully chose to continue. Because nobody tells me, your superior, a hero cop, what to do.

[conVINCEd 21469]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Chauvin decided that he didn’t care if he killed him - “if he dies, he dies” - his focus was on showing those civilians who their boss was. But he was also informed that he was killing Floyd....and then purposefully chose to continue. Because nobody tells me, your superior, a hero cop, what to do.

No disagreement.   Looking at the practical side of things.  It will be a hung jury.

[BradInATX 9208]

7 hours ago, Chico_SA said:

Are you a couple of days behind?

 

I am. Haven't kept up with it on a daily basis.

[Brisketexan 105060]

9 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

No disagreement.   Looking at the practical side of things.  It will be a hung jury.

Oh, it will be a hung jury on ANY charges because....."big scary black man with criminal record ON DRUGS hero cop feared for his life if the black man had just followed orders he'd be alive."  All it takes is one juror who thinks that way.  Look at the denizens of this board -- plenty think that way.  Go to Texags -- they ALL think that way.

Edited April 2, 2021 by Brisketexan

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

It’s telling that Chauvin neglected to recount to his supervisor how he had knelt on Floyd’s neck after he arrived dead at the hospital. That tells me that Chauvin knew damn well he fucked up.

Will we get an accounting of the 22 prior civilian complaints against Chauvin anytime during the trial? I’d be surprised if we did, but we should. We know the defense will dredge up every possible negative thing from Floyd’s past that they can find. 

[Cajun 11705]

Art Acevedo doesn’t like your tone!

No money in it.

[sheeeit 129]

Have only followed the peripherals but this guy needs to go down.  I think manslaughter is a better fit but idaf as long as he does significant time.

IMO, the only way he gets off if is all three of these things happen:

1) A credentialed medical expert testifies that the fentanyl/opioid levels in his system were high enough to cause his death

2) There is some sort of cop manual that shows the technique he used is part of the training 

3) A credentialed medical expert testifies that from the autopsy there was not any swelling/bruising etc on Floyd's neck/throat that indicated that the kneeling actually impacted his breathing

I think it is unlikely all 3 are either true or can be proven, but if they are then I think he might get off.

[Brisketexan 105060]

6 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Have only followed the peripherals but this guy needs to go down.  I think manslaughter is a better fit but idaf as long as he does significant time.

IMO, the only way he gets off if is all three of these things happen:

1) A credentialed medical expert testifies that the fentanyl/opioid levels in his system were high enough to cause his death

2) There is some sort of cop manual that shows the technique he used is part of the training 

3) A credentialed medical expert testifies that from the autopsy there was not any swelling/bruising etc on Floyd's neck/throat that indicated that the kneeling actually impacted his breathing

I think it is unlikely all 3 are either true or can be proven, but if they are then I think he might get off.

As explained above, point 1 is irrelevant unless it was the actual cause of death.  You can be on death's door, going to die in 10 minutes....but if I kill you in the next 5 minutes, it's murder.  "He was gonna die of something else pretty quickly anyway" is of no legal relevance.

Point 2 would definitely be relevant, at the very least in supporting a lesser conviction like manslaughter.  From what I understand, there is not such evidence -- while the technique MAY have been allowed, what is not allowed is to continue to use it after the victim is subdued and no longer struggling.....which Chauvin did....for an awful amount of time.

Point 3 would be support a complete acquittal -- if there is reasonable doubt that the act that allegedly caused his death did NOT actually cause his death, then yeah, that could support an acquittal.  But, again...I don't think that any credible expert can offer that testimony.

It's going to come down to whether one or two jurors think that Floyd was a bad guy who deserved it/don't question the hero cop who is constantly under life/death pressure.  And statistically, the chances of one or two jurors like that is uncomfortably high.

[TwiceHorn 31438]

15 hours ago, Asithappens said:

That judge is a jagoff, maybe even a fucking jagoff. 

What a tool.

That's a bit extreme by the judge, but he did it outside the presence of the jury.  Most would have said "please, just answer the question" right in front of the jury.  

All in all, I think most trial lawyers believe juries are smart enough to a) ascertain when a question is unfair in that it elicits an incomplete response and b) have some sympathy for the witness who wants to deliver a complete answer.  But I think the other conventional wisdom is that you don't want your witness fighting too hard with the questions because the jury starts to view it as a waste of time when judge and crossing counsel get into it with the witness about not volunteering information.

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

As explained above, point 1 is irrelevant unless it was the actual cause of death.  You can be on death's door, going to die in 10 minutes....but if I kill you in the next 5 minutes, it's murder.  "He was gonna die of something else pretty quickly anyway" is of no legal relevance.

Point 2 would definitely be relevant, at the very least in supporting a lesser conviction like manslaughter.  From what I understand, there is not such evidence -- while the technique MAY have been allowed, what is not allowed is to continue to use it after the victim is subdued and no longer struggling.....which Chauvin did....for an awful amount of time.

Point 3 would be support a complete acquittal -- if there is reasonable doubt that the act that allegedly caused his death did NOT actually cause his death, then yeah, that could support an acquittal.  But, again...I don't think that any credible expert can offer that testimony.

It's going to come down to whether one or two jurors think that Floyd was a bad guy who deserved it/don't question the hero cop who is constantly under life/death pressure.  And statistically, the chances of one or two jurors like that is uncomfortably high.

Point 1 is not irrelevant for the jury.  Obviously the guy died.  The defense will absolutely have to provide something for the jury to blame the death on.  That is why I said all 3 things must be present.  If the defense gets a doctor to testify to #3 above then the jury will still have to have some reason that he died.  Just #3 alone I do not think will do it.

[TwiceHorn 31438]

Well, a jury can do pretty much anything it damned well wants to on the evidence.  And in a criminal trial, there's no appeal for the state that the jury didn't follow the evidence properly or decide in accordance with the instructions.

To prevail "under the law" on the cause of death question, the defense is going to have to pretty much categorically exclude Chauvin's actions as a cause of death or contributor, and that's a pretty tall order.

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 105060]

27 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Point 1 is not irrelevant for the jury.  Obviously the guy died.  The defense will absolutely have to provide something for the jury to blame the death on.  That is why I said all 3 things must be present.  If the defense gets a doctor to testify to #3 above then the jury will still have to have some reason that he died.  Just #3 alone I do not think will do it.

Oh, if you're saying that the jury could bite on something that as a matter of law is irrelevant, I absolutely agree.  That's actually why I think there's a fair chance of acquittal -- the "scary big black guy with a criminal record who didn't obey all orders" angle.  It works.  See Texags.

[Pato del Muerto 52485]

Non sequitur:  are there criminal enhancements to committing a crime against a police officer (or even fire/emt)?  Are there enhancements for crimes committed BY cops or first responders?  Should there be either or both?

[TwiceHorn 31438]

29 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Non sequitur:  are there criminal enhancements to committing a crime against a police officer (or even fire/emt)?  Are there enhancements for crimes committed BY cops or first responders?  Should there be either or both?

Going to depend on state law.  So there are at least 50 answers to that question.  In Texas, the answer is yes, typically.  See, for example, murder of a fire or policeman, which is a capital offense.  https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

To some extent, us lawdogs consider "enhancments" to be sentencing "extras," as opposed to different crimes.  There's probably not a ton of practical difference.

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, if you're saying that the jury could bite on something that as a matter of law is irrelevant, I absolutely agree.  That's actually why I think there's a fair chance of acquittal -- the "scary big black guy with a criminal record who didn't obey all orders" angle.  It works.  See Texags.

That is exactly what I am saying but not in the overtly racist way in which you are saying it.  I do not think the race angle you embraced will have much of anything to do with the outcome.  In fact your whole ridiculous statement "scary big black guy with a criminal record who didn't obey all orders" is worthless.  I don't think anyone on that jury would acquit based on anything related to your statement.  However, if a medical expert tells them that the amount of drugs found in the defendants system was capable of causing him to have difficulty breathing and was large enough to cause his death then I think any person would have to at least consider that.  And, as I pointed out, they would only consider it relevant if the other factors I outlined were also present.

I don't think it will happen and I think the guy deservedly goes down.  I am just suggesting a scenario that could end in his acquittal.

[Brisketexan 105060]

8 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

In fact your whole ridiculous statement "scary big black guy with a criminal record who didn't obey all orders" is worthless.  I don't think anyone on that jury would acquit based on anything related to your statement. 

Counterpoint: I'm not telling you what I believe or not.  I'm not putting any real spin on the belief I cited.

1 -- Go read Texags.  And while they are just socially aware enough not to type the N-word out, read their collective posts, and there is zero mystery.  Race isn't the only factor in the psychotic tapestry they weave, but it's a big fucking thread.

2 -- realize that people like that also live in Minnesota and were certainly in the jury pool.

So, yes, potential jurors absolutely would acquit based on the kind of reasoning I pointed to.  They are flat-out saying so.

Why is it so hard to believe that we have a material number of really shitty racist people in our society?  I know that we'd rather that not be the case, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[sheeeit 129]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Counterpoint: I'm not telling you what I believe or not.  I'm not putting any real spin on the belief I cited.

1 -- Go read Texags.  And while they are just socially aware enough not to type the N-word out, read their collective posts, and there is zero mystery.  Race isn't the only factor in the psychotic tapestry they weave, but it's a big fucking thread.

2 -- realize that people like that also live in Minnesota and were certainly in the jury pool.

So, yes, potential jurors absolutely would acquit based on the kind of reasoning I pointed to.  They are flat-out saying so.

Why is it so hard to believe that we have a material number of really shitty racist people in our society?  I know that we'd rather that not be the case, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I will politely pass on Texags and take your word for it.  To your overall point, we just disagree on the size and scope and influence.  I certainly believe there are racists in society.  It is human nature.  There are racists among every type of humans in every society.

I am just going to believe that the scale of racist that you like to describe is very small.  I think the chances that a true racist could make it into the jury pool and be selected for this trial and pass through jury selection without detection and then have enough sway over the other jurors to get them to decide in a manner that they would not have otherwise is so small that it is not worth talking about.  I think the legal defense of Chauvin would be exactly the same if the only difference were that Floyd was white.  I do not believe (and really do not believe you do either) that people on the jury would vote in anyway diffferent than they will if Floyd was white or Chauvin was black.

I think the dialog on sites like Texags would be identical if Floyd was white.  I think they are massively more pro police than anti black in their arguments and rhetoric.  Do you really believe that if the exact same circumstances existed but Floyd was white that a site like texags would be calling for Chauvin to be guilty?  I do not.  

[Brisketexan 105060]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

I will politely pass on Texags and take your word for it.  To your overall point, we just disagree on the size and scope and influence.  I certainly believe there are racists in society.  It is human nature.  There are racists among every type of humans in every society.

I am just going to believe that the scale of racist that you like to describe is very small.  I think the chances that a true racist could make it into the jury pool and be selected for this trial and pass through jury selection without detection and then have enough sway over the other jurors to get them to decide in a manner that they would not have otherwise is so small that it is not worth talking about.  I think the legal defense of Chauvin would be exactly the same if the only difference were that Floyd was white.  I do not believe (and really do not believe you do either) that people on the jury would vote in anyway diffferent than they will if Floyd was white or Chauvin was black.

I think the dialog on sites like Texags would be identical if Floyd was white.  I think they are massively more pro police than anti black in their arguments and rhetoric.  Do you really believe that if the exact same circumstances existed but Floyd was white that a site like texags would be calling for Chauvin to be guilty?  I do not.  

The Texags crowd would be much more ambivalent about the outcome if Floyd had been white.  Yes, they'd still be generally "pro cop," but they wouldn't have their passions raised to this level.  This picture appeals to the visceral, base instincts of the worst of America -- white cop, face of law and order, of what...you know.....REAL American society looks like, versus black thug, on drugs, criminal history.  It hits all the notes, and gets them worked up into a frenzy.  We know this about people -- tell them a story of the exact same conduct, but give the character a "black sounding" name vs. a "white sounding" name, and the description of the "black" character are more harsh, judgmental, etc.  Studies have literally been done on that sort of thing.

Sure, the legal defense of Chauvin would be the same no matter what, because in court, you play the facts you've got.  But the passions of jurors....they can and do involve race, because the passions of some Americans on anything involve race.

Oh, and I'm not suggesting that a racist/shitty juror on the jury sways the other members of the jury.  I'm suggesting that he holds out, resulting in a mistrial.  To the extent I suggested acquittal based on such a juror (I may have, didn't re-read all my posts), I'm actually suggesting a mistrial.

[dcar00 14153]

he's gonna get manslaughter, simply due to the amount of time he had the knee on his neck, and with a stiff of sentence as possible, it seems appropriate and certainly better than acquital.  he might have died due to the drugs and health while under stress but no one is going to believe that was the actual cause.

[Guest Lobo]

Today must have been particularly brutal for the defense, judging by the posts on texags turning from "Floyd got what he deserved" to "I mean, okay...maybe death was a little extreme...but still gotta respect the blue."  

[sheeeit 129]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The Texags crowd would be much more ambivalent about the outcome if Floyd had been white.  Yes, they'd still be generally "pro cop," but they wouldn't have their passions raised to this level.  This picture appeals to the visceral, base instincts of the worst of America -- white cop, face of law and order, of what...you know.....REAL American society looks like, versus black thug, on drugs, criminal history.  It hits all the notes, and gets them worked up into a frenzy.  We know this about people -- tell them a story of the exact same conduct, but give the character a "black sounding" name vs. a "white sounding" name, and the description of the "black" character are more harsh, judgmental, etc.  Studies have literally been done on that sort of thing.

Sure, the legal defense of Chauvin would be the same no matter what, because in court, you play the facts you've got.  But the passions of jurors....they can and do involve race, because the passions of some Americans on anything involve race.

Oh, and I'm not suggesting that a racist/shitty juror on the jury sways the other members of the jury.  I'm suggesting that he holds out, resulting in a mistrial.  To the extent I suggested acquittal based on such a juror (I may have, didn't re-read all my posts), I'm actually suggesting a mistrial.

I suppose it is possible.  I think an analysis of actual trials (not TV/movies) would show that the lone hold out thing is very rare (not simply hung juries but specifically lone hold outs).  It is a bit higher when considering multiple charges but still a very small number.  And even rarer are instances where a lone hold out caused a mistrial that 11 other jurors decided differently where the next trial did not result in a conviction or a plea that involved significant jail time.  It happens and that is just a part of our system.  But I do not believe that the racists you decry actually change justice.  They might delay it, but there are no where near enough to actually change anything.  

Appreciate the debate.

 

[GopherRock 1765]

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Today must have been particularly brutal for the defense, judging by the posts on texags turning from "Floyd got what he deserved" to "I mean, okay...maybe death was a little extreme...but still gotta respect the blue."  

Former MPD Lieutenant Richard Zimmerman was on the stand this morning, and was a very effective witness for the State. 

 

 

[Guest Lobo]

Police everywhere are having a long-needed Anton Chigurh moment this week.  "If the rule you (all) followed brought you to this...of what use was the rule?"  

Why do some of them make their partners and subordinates and trainees look the other way and/or help cover up murders?  Why not something cool like keeping seized cash from a drug bust or a sports car or an exotic gun?  No new cop ever gets the fun mentor who shows them how to shakedown a stripper for a free blowjob, it seems like it's always, "Oh you got assigned to Chauvin this week?  Yeah, watch out...he's had 37 racial incidents reported against him.  Basically he likes to beat up black people on camera.  Anywho...if you have more questions, I'll be down in the evidence room with my mentee doing keybumps and peeling off small bills.  Catcha later.!"  

[TwiceHorn 31438]

34 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I suppose it is possible.  I think an analysis of actual trials (not TV/movies) would show that the lone hold out thing is very rare (not simply hung juries but specifically lone hold outs).  It is a bit higher when considering multiple charges but still a very small number.  And even rarer are instances where a lone hold out caused a mistrial that 11 other jurors decided differently where the next trial did not result in a conviction or a plea that involved significant jail time.  It happens and that is just a part of our system.  But I do not believe that the racists you decry actually change justice.  They might delay it, but there are no where near enough to actually change anything.  

Appreciate the debate.

 

There are some people that consciously dislike blacks, or fear them at least.  These are your Klan-types, and your pearl-clutchers.

Then there are some people who don't at least at any real conscious level, but still, at their core, fear and distrust them.  You'd be hard-pressed to get this person to demonstrate racism in an overt, conscious way, but they still harbor those thoughts.

But when it comes to making a hard decision they may well be influenced by a few things, to wit:  a) an inordinate respect for cops, resulting in deference to their actions; b) a fear and distrust of a large black man with a criminal record and drugs in his system ("blacks aren't generally bad, but this one sure was").  And those two things may combine to "hang" a juror or two if not the jury entirely, or, if enough of them result in a straight acquittal.

[Brisketexan 105060]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There are some people that consciously dislike blacks, or fear them at least.  These are your Klan-types, and your pearl-clutchers.

Then there are some people who don't at least at any real conscious level, but still, at their core, fear and distrust them.  You'd be hard-pressed to get this person to demonstrate racism in an overt, conscious way, but they still harbor those thoughts.

But when it comes to making a hard decision they may well be influenced by a few things, to wit:  a) an inordinate respect for cops, resulting in deference to their actions; b) a fear and distrust of a large black man with a criminal record and drugs in his system ("blacks aren't generally bad, but this one sure was").  And those two things may combine to "hang" a juror or two if not the jury entirely, or, if enough of them result in a straight acquittal.

This.  It's not an empirical, data-driven thing.  It's human nature, the nature of implicit biases and fears, and how those cause people to weight situations differently in a way that is influenced by those biases and fears.

Rarely do you get someone who admits "I'll never convict a cop for killing a N-word!"  But you will see that you could run the exact same scenarios, involving identical people with identical actions etc., but one of the players is white in one scenario and black in another....and you'll see those biases play out in the differing outcomes.  And in many cases, the people who are guilty of acting on those biases would be horrified to be informed that they did so.  Good people, who truly think they aren't racist, can nonetheless act based on unrecognized implicit biases they carry.  And that's not just true for racial biases -- it's true for ALL of the biases and baggage we carry.

[TwiceHorn 31438]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  It's not an empirical, data-driven thing.  It's human nature, the nature of implicit biases and fears, and how those cause people to weight situations differently in a way that is influenced by those biases and fears.

Rarely do you get someone who admits "I'll never convict a cop for killing a N-word!"  But you will see that you could run the exact same scenarios, involving identical people with identical actions etc., but one of the players is white in one scenario and black in another....and you'll see those biases play out in the differing outcomes.  And in many cases, the people who are guilty of acting on those biases would be horrified to be informed that they did so.  Good people, who truly think they aren't racist, can nonetheless act based on unrecognized implicit biases they carry.  And that's not just true for racial biases -- it's true for ALL of the biases and baggage we carry.

And, by the same token, there are going to be some that are so afraid of indulging a racial bias that they may act the other way.

[Pato del Muerto 52485]

Which is true:

floyd was able to walk into a shop, communicate with police, resist to the point they deemed it necessary to use force to take him to the ground and knee on his neck area even after being handcuffed, then still communicate his discomfort and fear in that prone position with officers’ body weight on him

or

had so much fentanyl in his system that he just up and died during the encounter. 
 

doesn’t really seem likely that both can be true. 

[52-80 19147]

On 3/12/2021 at 4:32 PM, BradInATX said:

 

"Unarmed" is nonsense and you and I both know that. The police definition of "armed" is broad and it's a CYA catch-all. Car? Weapon. Knife in the glovebox 40 yards away from the shooting? Armed. Pocket knife? Armed. Golf clubs in the trunk? Armed.

Find me some stats where the person who was shot was brandishing or using the weapon. You won't find them, because the first instinct of police in these incidents is to immediately obfuscate and cover up. There is no way to accurately quantify this, and that's by design.

Bottom line is that blacks are killed by police officers at about 2.5x the rate that whites are, and this is in a country where whites own guns at roughly double the rate of blacks. 

of course you couldn't find it you stupid fuckhead

 

Police shootings database 2015-2021 - Washington Post

6163 persons shot and killed by police.  1466 black.  2801 white.  3591 in total were armed with GUNS.

893 of the blacks had guns = 61%

1670 of the whites had guns = 60%

 

let me guess, "you couldnt prove they were brandishing the weapon!!!", or "the guns were planted on the victims as a cover up"?

 

[TwiceHorn 31438]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Which is true:

floyd was able to walk into a shop, communicate with police, resist to the point they deemed it necessary to use force to take him to the ground and knee on his neck area even after being handcuffed, then still communicate his discomfort and fear in that prone position with officers’ body weight on him

or

had so much fentanyl in his system that he just up and died during the encounter. 
 

doesn’t really seem likely that both can be true. 

Agreed.  The only way that makes sense is that the meth somehow counteracted the Fentanyl and the whole mess set up something.

[52-80 19147]

16.7% of shot whites were armed with knives.

13.7% of shot blacks were armed with knives.

 

turns out, presence of weapon shows a stronger link to fatal shootings than skin color

[Helobious 9450]

24 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

of course you couldn't find it you stupid fuckhead

 

Police shootings database 2015-2021 - Washington Post

6163 persons shot and killed by police.  1466 black.  2801 white.  3591 in total were armed with GUNS.

893 of the blacks had guns = 61%

1670 of the whites had guns = 60%

 

let me guess, "you couldnt prove they were brandishing the weapon!!!", or "the guns were planted on the victims as a cover up"?

 

Im reminded of the Walter Scott video where you see the cop casually toss his taser down next to the black guy he had just shot and killed in the back, and of course went on to claim Scott took it from him in a struggle. That cop is sitting in prison right now. So saying framings like that never happen is as dumb as saying they always happen. 

[52-80 19147]

2 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Im reminded of the Walter Scott video where you see the cop casually toss his taser down next to the black guy he had just shot and killed in the back, and of course went on to claim Scott took it from him in a struggle. That cop is sitting in prison right now. So saying framings like that never happen is as dumb as saying they always happen. 

obviously, there are shithead cops doing shithead stuff like the namesake of this thread.  the exception does not prove the rule. 

the resident woke shithead waived any quantification on  account of the definition of 'armed', but now we have it specific to firearms, and in sufficient number...whats the next line of excuse?  that the guns werent loaded?  or that theyre planted?

[Horn_Spanker 524]

What are the odds that Minneapolis burns in the next few days?

[Parliament 14239]

Pretty low. Now after the trial? Rather high. Anything short of the maximum penalty and folks are gonna be mad.

[conVINCEd 21469]

20 minutes ago, Horn_Spanker said:

What are the odds that Minneapolis burns in the next few days?

If it’s anything other than guilty I would take a few vacay days if I lived there, but it will be a few weeks before there’s a verdict. 

[Sawbonz 27536]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

16.7% of shot whites were armed with knives.

13.7% of shot blacks were armed with knives.

 

turns out, presence of weapon shows a stronger link to fatal shootings than skin color

Can you break down killings of unarmed suspects by race?

[ChiTownDoc 21141]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

obviously, there are shithead cops doing shithead stuff like the namesake of this thread.  the exception does not prove the rule. 

the resident woke shithead waived any quantification on  account of the definition of 'armed', but now we have it specific to firearms, and in sufficient number...whats the next line of excuse?  that the guns werent loaded?  or that theyre planted?

Wait.  You know that shithead cops are the vast majority right?  Or am I taking crazy pills and you still think there’s just ‘a few bad apples’?

[Jkwellborn 6688]

What are the odds that Minneapolis burns in the next few days?

Have they rebuilt what was burned last year?

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

3 hours ago, Horn_Spanker said:

What are the odds that Minneapolis burns in the next few days?

Isn’t the trial expected to last longer than that? I’’d say zero. But yeah, if Chauvin gets acquitted then Minneapolis will burn and there will be riots all over the country that will make the Rodney King riots look tame by comparison. And rightly so. 

[Parliament 14239]

^^^Doesn't own property downtown.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13508]

9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Isn’t the trial expected to last longer than that? I’’d say zero. But yeah, if Chauvin gets acquitted then Minneapolis will burn and there will be riots all over the country that will make the Rodney King riots look tame by comparison. And rightly so. 

I wonder how hard the DA attempted to cut a deal. It’s a huge risk for the city to try Chauvin and lose. I’m not suggesting a no-prison deal but maybe 5 years would have been acceptable to all.

[GopherRock 1765]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I wonder how hard the DA attempted to cut a deal. It’s a huge risk for the city to try Chauvin and lose. I’m not suggesting a no-prison deal but maybe 5 years would have been acceptable to all.

Apparently in the week immediately after the killing, there was a deal in place for Chauvin to plead guilty to murder 3 and do 10+ years in federal prison instead of state. It supposedly fell apart when his counsel wanted a guarantee for no federal civil rights charges. The timeline would also line up with when the AG office took over prosecution from the Hennepin County Attorney, it was right after this would have happened.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ag-barr-quashed-plea-deal-fired-officer-derek-chauvin-george-n1257457

[52-80 19147]

6 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Can you break down killings of unarmed suspects by race?

the source is there.  you can work out the numbers yourself.

5 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Wait.  You know that shithead cops are the vast majority right?  Or am I taking crazy pills and you still think there’s just ‘a few bad apples’?

if you want to make bombastic claims, you have the burden to prove those claims. 

especially if they are of the binary quantifiable types - like "police murder minorities for sport".  where you have a rate of 0.036 annual non-white unarmed fatal shooting by cop per 100k, thats significant sporting activity?

if you want to highlight US police killing civilations at 3.5x the rate of Canada and 4x the rate of Australia.....but forget to mention US civilians commit intentional homicide at 5x the rate of Canada and Australia... i.e. more encounters with violent and armed society. 

not substantiating your claims with complete facts is evidence of laziness or stupidity.  knowing who is making those claims, the reason is both.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

What about Chicago?!