The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

I'm primarily attempting to point out/make fun of the double-standard held by the right when that line (including your variant) applies to one of their own, rather than the people that they don't like.
Is Chauvin's political bent known? I never got the sense that the right aligns with Chauvin ideologically, rather they observe the people they don't like wanting to see him held accountable for the death of George Floyd as a result of his excessive force, and so they've chosen to champion him. Of course, the latter strikes me as being far more toxic.
 
Is Chauvin's political bent known? I never got the sense that the right aligns with Chauvin ideologically, rather they observe the people they don't like wanting to see him held accountable for the death of George Floyd as a result of his excessive force, and so they've chosen to champion him. Of course, the latter strikes me as being far more toxic.

To be fair, I don't know how Chauvin leans. I think that's something that has been purposely kept quiet (not that it's truly relevant to the trial anyways). However, since he is a police officer, and subdued a big scary black dude that had a criminal record and a known drug history, I think that your latter observation is why a good number of folks on the right are rallying behind him. And, yeah, it's way more toxic.
 
And to think, some people actually used to try and argue that Tim Pool was an impartial journalist and not a blatant right wing fanboy
Pim Tool followers will not stop saying this now.

She's being condemned quite a bit from the left as well, which shows that her own party's base recognizes those words were not necessary.
90% of the Democratic party isn't left, and real leftists like me always disliked her. This statement is just further proof why.
 
Last edited:
Carlson's reaction when his guest doesn't deliver the required response? Talk over him and shut him down with a creepy laugh.

 
Last edited:
Carlson's reaction when his guest doesn't deliver the required response? Talk over him and shut him down with a creepy laugh.


That's... something. Quite something. He actually looks like he's been briefly possessed.

Which is an improvement. I've never seen a still image of that person where he's not looking absolutely baffled, like a particularly stupid dog trying to work out what a hedgehog is and why it tastes of pain.
 
Last edited:


That seems like a fairly legally sound analysis of the SCOTUS argument. It does bypass an entire appeal level though, so it is possible that the appeals court could overturn the conviction. I'll couch this by saying that I do not know whether the appeals court would consider whether the jury was somehow influenced by the media coverage (and it seems doubtful to me that they would overturn the decision based on that). If anything, this bolsters the AngloSaxonTraditionsHat point, which is that the SCOTUS discussion is magical and out of touch with reality.


Edit:

Here we go, this is on point:

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/20/22394797/derek-chauvin-appeal-sentencing-civl-trial-conviction-murder-what-is-next#:~:text=Under%20Minnesota%20law%2C%20Chauvin%20has
As the Court held most recently in Skilling v. United States (2010), “a trial court’s findings of juror impartiality may be overturned only for manifest error.” As a general rule, appeals courts are advised to defer to trial judges in cases alleging juror prejudice, on the theory that the trial judge is better able to observe the jury and determine if the jurors are somehow tainted.

Indeed, if appeals courts were too quick to overturn convictions because a public figure expressed an opinion about the case, then it’s doubtful that any high-profile conviction could stand. As the Supreme Court warned more than 140 years ago:
 
Last edited:
The jury is sayin I belong behind baaaarrrrrsssss...

walk%2Bhard%2Bthe%2Bdewey%2Bcox%2Bstory.jpg
 
Last edited:
He'll likely end up in protective custody in prison given the high profile of his case and zero chance of anonymity.

Yup:
Derek Chauvin is in a prison's segregated housing unit for his safety while he awaits sentencing

He will likely stay there for his entire sentence too. I mean I'd like to see him in the general population since he's a convicted murderer and should be with other convicted murderers, but his crime doesn't carry a death sentence. Putting him there would certainly mean he'd get shanked in the showers.
 
Yup:
Derek Chauvin is in a prison's segregated housing unit for his safety while he awaits sentencing

He will likely stay there for his entire sentence too. I mean I'd like to see him in the general population since he's a convicted murderer and should be with other convicted murderers, but his crime doesn't carry a death sentence. Putting him there would certainly mean he'd get shanked in the showers.
Okay, but...

...hear me out...

...what if he just does what he's told?
 
Yup:
Derek Chauvin is in a prison's segregated housing unit for his safety while he awaits sentencing

He will likely stay there for his entire sentence too. I mean I'd like to see him in the general population since he's a convicted murderer and should be with other convicted murderers, but his crime doesn't carry a death sentence. Putting him there would certainly mean he'd get shanked in the showers.

Doesn't it seem like prison would be the easiest place to enforce safety? They can have cameras everywhere, they have guards everywhere, and it seems like a trial for a crime committed in prison should be commonplace (though for some reason I feel like I never hear about that). The segregated housing seems like it should be for people who are considered too dangerous for the rest of the population rather than the other way around.

The US prison system sucks.

Edit:

Ok, I went down a brief rabbit hole on this website, which discusses at great length why people are incarcerated. It's got fascinating stuff, including the really difficult problem of figuring out what crimes people are committing and why they're incarcerated. Check this out:

To understand the main drivers of incarceration, the public needs to see how many people are incarcerated for different offense types. But the reported offense data oversimplifies how people interact with the criminal justice system in two important ways: it reports only one offense category per person, and it reflects the outcome of the legal process, obscuring important details of actual events.

First, when a person is in prison for multiple offenses, only the most serious offense is reported. So, for example, there are people in prison for violent offenses who were also convicted of drug offenses, but they are included only in the “violent” category in the data. This makes it hard to grasp the complexity of criminal events, such as the role drugs may have played in violent or property offenses. We must also consider that almost all convictions are the result of plea bargains, where defendants plead guilty to a lesser offense, possibly in a different category, or one that they did not actually commit.

Secondly, many of these categories group together people convicted of a wide range of offenses. For violent offenses especially, these labels can distort perceptions of individual “violent offenders” and exaggerate the scale of dangerous violent crime. For example, “murder” is an extremely serious offense, but that category groups together the small number of serial killers with people who committed acts that are unlikely, for reasons of circumstance or advanced age, to ever happen again. It also includes offenses that the average person may not consider to be murder at all. In particular, the felony murder rule says that if someone dies during the commission of a felony, everyone involved can be as guilty of murder as the person who pulled the trigger. Acting as lookout during a break-in where someone was accidentally killed is indeed a serious offense, but many may be surprised that this can be considered murder in the U.S.
 
Last edited:
Breaking: Little idiot woman who rattled off reasons George Floyd didn't deserve justice that had absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances of his death doesn't like that the law enforcement officer whose actions resulted in George Floyd's death is held accountable for those actions.



These right trash pundits, these oozing sacks of ****, have had two narratives prepared to address the outcome of this trial since before it even began. Because Chauvin was held accountable in a court of law, this is the narrative they're peddling. Absolute ****ing garbage.
 
Doesn't it seem like prison would be the easiest place to enforce safety? They can have cameras everywhere, they have guards everywhere, and it seems like a trial for a crime committed in prison should be commonplace (though for some reason I feel like I never hear about that). The segregated housing seems like it should be for people who are considered too dangerous for the rest of the population rather than the other way around.

Guards in prison requires an element of trust. Call me a cynic but a bent prison guard or guards could easily be bribed to look the other way. It's... certainly not beyond the realms of possibility. I think this is a problem any time somebody high-profile or involved in a high profile case is in prison, let alone a former law enforcement officer; a police officer in prison for something as trivial as a parking ticket would have to sleep with both eyes open and their back against the wall.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't it seem like prison would be the easiest place to enforce safety? They can have cameras everywhere, they have guards everywhere, and it seems like a trial for a crime committed in prison should be commonplace (though for some reason I feel like I never hear about that). The segregated housing seems like it should be for people who are considered too dangerous for the rest of the population rather than the other way around.
Guards in prison requires an element of trust. Call me a cynic but a bent prison guard or guards could easily be bribed to look the other way. It's... certainly not beyond the realms of possibility. I think this is a problem any time somebody high-profile or involved in a high profile case is in prison, let alone a former law enforcement officer; a police officer in prison for something as trivial as a parking ticket would have to sleep with both eyes open and their back against the wall.
The chances of someone well known coming to harm in a prison is simply eps-tiny.
 
I'm glad I don't live in a country which sends people to prison for parking offences. This must have been what Bob Dylan meant when he told people not to follow leaders and to watch their meters.
 
Last edited:
Officials have said the officer opened fire in order to save the life of one of the girls. A woman identified in local media as Ms Bryant's aunt said her niece was simply defending herself after being attacked.

That's an awful ending, but I think this story could sink very quickly if the other party disputes this & comes out saying Bryant was the one provoking the attack, trying to injure the other girl.
 
A shooting in Ohio has divided opinion on whether the cop was justified with even LeBron James weighing in (he has deleted his tweet).
Columbus PD actually has one of the worst records in the country for this.

I've read that there was a group fight going on and that Bryant was likely trying to defend herself. Regardless, using a ranged weapon on somebody who doesn't have one is not a proper response. Did this officers forget what side their taser is mounted as well?

Edit: She's the one who called the cops.
 
Last edited:
Carlson's reaction when his guest doesn't deliver the required response? Talk over him and shut him down with a creepy laugh.



"do they resign because...obviously their honor is being violated?"

Wow the kind of assumptions baked into that are stunningly awful.
 
Regardless, using a ranged weapon on somebody who doesn't have one is not a proper response.
I...I don't quite agree with this.

If an individual can reasonably be deemed a threat, regardless of the article they're wielding or whether they're wielding any article at all, the action in self-defense ought to be justified. The threat threshold is lower still if the action is to the aid of another in a protective capacity.

The information presently available points to this being a bad situation.
 
The threat threshold is lower still if the action is to the aid of another in a protective capacity.
I’m not sure this concept holds up in court for civilians. Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that people deserve their day in court.

We still don’t know if Bryant was defending herself and the cop just didn’t see it that way. We never will. Ohio just enacted a stand-your-ground law literally two weeks ago.
 
The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big, yellow ones.

I’m not sure this concept holds up in court for civilians.
Does it have to?

Law enforcement ostensibly exists to preserve rights. One has a right to life. One forfeits that right the moment they act unjustly to deprive another of their right to life.

Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that people deserve their day in court.
I'm inclined to agree. And in the event that actions aren't demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to have been inappropriate, with the understanding that one can be perceived a threat to another even if that may not be the case when reviewing circumstances not known to law enforcement, law enforcement officers found not guilty in a court of law may still be held accountable. This means ending or revising qualified immunity.

We still don’t know if Bryant was defending herself and the cop just didn’t see it that way. We never will.
We may not. Given what is presently known, the entire situation was bad and the shooting doesn't stand out as being inappropriate.

Ohio just enacted a stand-your-ground law literally two weeks ago.
This is a thing unrelated to the thing being discussed.
 

Latest Posts

Back