Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Themius]

And that is exactly what I assumed when I saw "reality show" + "bounty hunters" together (in before infraction for nation bashing).



It was actually your "sound arguments" and your absolute unwillingness to back down in more than one thread.



And here you go again - making shit up. But you do you, I cannot make you change your mind. Just like with Themius and couple others.
P.S.
You forgot to call me some creepy name. I would say that is a progress.

what shit did i make up?

[Zeth Hawkins]

Chance for a Chauvin trial appeal have increased. Juror Brandon Mitchell participated in "March on Washington" last summer wearing BLM attire.

https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-...ces/600053102/

[Edge-]

Chance for a Chauvin trial appeal have increased. Juror Brandon Mitchell participated in "March on Washington" last summer wearing BLM attire.

https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-...ces/600053102/

Because he supports BLM? Is that disqualifying? The only way it would matter is if he was asked if he went to any BLM events and said "no", and we have no indication he was asked or lied about this attendance per the article.

Though I gotta say it's pretty funny seeing folks clutch pearls over this given the long history of literal Klansmen packing juries and sending innocent Black people to prison for all kinds of crimes. Sucks when you think the shoe might be on the other foot, eh?

[postman1782]

Chance for a Chauvin trial appeal have increased. Juror Brandon Mitchell participated in "March on Washington" last summer wearing BLM attire.

https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-...ces/600053102/

LOL, no it doesn't. Did they ask them if they went to protests?

Also, it isn't surprising you are trying to defend murderous cops.

[Endus]

Chance for a Chauvin trial appeal have increased. Juror Brandon Mitchell participated in "March on Washington" last summer wearing BLM attire.

https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-...ces/600053102/

On what fucking grounds?

And no, "he isn't a white supremacist dingus" is not grounds.

[Howel]

On what fucking grounds?

And no, "he isn't a white supremacist dingus" is not grounds.

I guess on the grounds that he had a preexisting bias/opinion on the matter and basically contaminated the jury, which I'd say is somewhat shaky, but honestly it it hard to tell in the eyes of the court, what is and isn't considered a bias.

[Endus]

I guess on the grounds that he had a preexisting bias/opinion on the matter and basically contaminated the jury, which I'd say is somewhat shaky, but honestly it it hard to tell in the eyes of the court, what is and isn't considered a bias.

There is no such connection. The argument is literally "hey, it's unfair that he's a juror, he believes that black people's lives matter as much as anyone elses". Which is the default state for anyone who isn't an outright racist.

Racism is the bias. Not the lack of such.

[tehdang]

Chance for a Chauvin trial appeal have increased. Juror Brandon Mitchell participated in "March on Washington" last summer wearing BLM attire.

https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-...ces/600053102/

For people that couldn't be bothered to read the article:

Mitchell said he answered "no" to two questions in the juror questionnaire sent out before jury selection that asked about participation in demonstrations.

The first question asked, "Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?"

The second asked, "Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?"

Lying on the jury questionnaire is kinda a big deal. Biases are somewhat natural on juries (broadly speaking). Lying about those biases during jury questions, meant to unveil potential biases, speaks to the dishonesty of the juror and his/her inability to render an impartial verdict on the evidence.

I yield to actual lawyers on the actual degree at which this makes it more likely his appeal succeeds. It was unanimous verdict on 3 counts. It also wouldn't be the first case where the conviction was overturned for lying on jury questions ... previous murder convictions were overturned for lying about prior experience with abuse and alcoholism, and lying about personally being/family member being a previous victim of a crime.

[Howel]

There is no such connection. The argument is literally "hey, it's unfair that he's a juror, he believes that black people's lives matter as much as anyone elses". Which is the default state for anyone who isn't an outright racist.

Racism is the bias. Not the lack of such.

I agree, that this is a rather low bar to try and get it thrown out, especially if you consider just how many millions of Americans have actually participated in BLM marches, somehow now being completely disbarred from being jury members in a police officer ruling. But ultimately it is up to the courts to decide that, and their logic can sometimes be rather weird and strict.

- - - Updated - - -

Lying on the jury questionnaire is kinda a big deal.

Thing is, I think on pure technicality, that might not even be considered a lie. "Aug. 28 event commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" - that's not protesting police violence, albeit, I would take a guess it might have had quite a lot of content that circulate said topic, but ultimately if it wasn't its stated and intended singular purpose, then it wasn't a protest against police violence.

[Endus]

For people that couldn't be bothered to read the article:

Lying on the jury questionnaire is kinda a big deal. Biases are somewhat natural on juries (broadly speaking). Lying about those biases during jury questions, meant to unveil potential biases, speaks to the dishonesty of the juror and his/her inability to render an impartial verdict on the evidence.

I yield to actual lawyers on the actual degree at which this makes it more likely his appeal succeeds. It was unanimous verdict on 3 counts. It also wouldn't be the first case where the conviction was overturned for lying on jury questions ... previous murder convictions were overturned for lying about prior experience with abuse and alcoholism, and lying about personally being/family member being a previous victim of a crime.

It's clearly not a violation of the first; the protest was not in Minneapolis at all.

As for the second; it wasn't a police brutality march. It was a commemoration of MLK Jr's original March on Washington. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/u...gton-2020.html

And if the standard being applied to the jury selection was "must not care about the lives of black Americans", then the standard itself is wildly white supremacist in nature to begin with, and any unfairness in the jury would have been unfairness in Chauvin's favor.

You'd have to be a white supremacist to take an issue with this shit.

In what fucking world would "I don't think police officers should be murdering people of color" a statement of fucking bias?

[tehdang]

Thing is, I think on pure technicality, that might not even be considered a lie. "Aug. 28 event commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" - that's not protesting police violence, albeit, I would take a guess it might have had quite a lot of content that circulate said topic, but ultimately if it wasn't its stated and intended singular purpose, then it wasn't a protest against police violence.

That’ll be for the lawyers to argue that technicality. He shows up at a march wearing a shirt “ GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS” and “BLM”, but it no way was that a protest about police violence. (He’s pictured wearing the shirt, but denies knowing anything about that shirt he was wearing ... as one does)

It’ll at least be a spicier appeal, even if the judges find reason to narrowly interpret what constitutes a protest or a person engaging in a protest.

[postman1782]

That’ll be for the lawyers to argue that technicality. He shows up at a march wearing a shirt “ GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS” and “BLM”, but it no way was that a protest about police violence. (He’s pictured wearing the shirt, but denies knowing anything about that shirt he was wearing ... as one does)

It’ll at least be a spicier appeal, even if the judges find reason to narrowly interpret what constitutes a protest or a person engaging in a protest.

How the fuck isn't a protest against police violence? Because the BLM movement, and that knee, is a symbol of police brutality.

[Edge-]

That’ll be for the lawyers to argue that technicality. He shows up at a march wearing a shirt “ GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS” and “BLM”, but it no way was that a protest about police violence. (He’s pictured wearing the shirt, but denies knowing anything about that shirt he was wearing ... as one does)

It’ll at least be a spicier appeal, even if the judges find reason to narrowly interpret what constitutes a protest or a person engaging in a protest.

I wonder if, "I think people who are shown to have conclusively committed a crime should be found guilty of that crime." is as controversial a take in other cases as it apparently is in this one.

[Krakan]

I wonder if, "I think people who are shown to have conclusively committed a crime should be found guilty of that crime." is as controversial a take in other cases as it apparently is in this one.

It comes up from time to time it just rarely gets any press. OJ would be another example.

[Edge-]

OJ would be another example.

OJ was because the LAPD absolutely fucked up every aspect of that investigation from top to bottom, sadly the deserved to lose that case because they screwed it up so terribly.

https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Reckonin.../dp/0684852713

Has a whole chapter on it as he was brought in to to work on the autopsy etc. and goes into quite a bit of detail on how badly that investigation and prosecution were botched.

But hey, we got Rodney King getting the fuck beat outta him while on the ground with no attempt to detain him live on TV and there were no consequences for that at all. Because sometimes even when you have literal video evidence of officers brazenly commiting assault on a guy who was clearly no longer resisting anything and was desperately trying to survive their attacks, that's just not enough.

[SirBeef]

On what fucking grounds?

And no, "he isn't a white supremacist dingus" is not grounds.

Remember these are the same guys that claim federal investigators have clear bias becasue they voted for HRC. They do not have the capacity to separate political leanings from anything. So of course he believes that becasue someone wore a BLM shirt they are incapable of being impartial.

Or he's just another bad faith troll.

[Krakan]

OJ was because the LAPD absolutely fucked up every aspect of that investigation from top to bottom, sadly the deserved to lose that case because they screwed it up so terribly.

https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Reckonin.../dp/0684852713

Has a whole chapter on it as he was brought in to to work on the autopsy etc. and goes into quite a bit of detail on how badly that investigation and prosecution were botched.

But hey, we got Rodney King getting the fuck beat outta him while on the ground with no attempt to detain him live on TV and there were no consequences for that at all. Because sometimes even when you have literal video evidence of officers brazenly commiting assault on a guy who was clearly no longer resisting anything and was desperately trying to survive their attacks, that's just not enough.

Isn't always. There is a pretty brutal video of a guy sobbing crawling on the ground begging for an officer not to shot him. Clip ends about a minute in with the officer unloading on him and then given PTSD pay after.

It's just the world we live in.

[s_bushido]

Chance for a Chauvin trial appeal have increased. Juror Brandon Mitchell participated in "March on Washington" last summer wearing BLM attire.

https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-...ces/600053102/

Tell you what: Since delusional right wing fucks in America are convinced that Chauvin was only convicted because that was the "will of the Leftist Mob™ that was threatening to burn down all the cities if they didn't get their way," we'll take the remarkable step of retrying him in a country that doesn't fetishize the police and where half the political spectrum doesn't think that summary execution in the street is a proper punishment for *checks notes* being suspected of counterfeiting a $20. And in the meantime the obvious murderer can rot in a cell somewhere. Sound like a deal?

[Krakan]

Tell you what: Since delusional right wing fucks in America are convinced that Chauvin was only convicted because that was the "will of the Leftist Mob™ that was threatening to burn down all the cities if they didn't get their way," we'll take the remarkable step of retrying him in a country that doesn't fetishize the police and where half the political spectrum doesn't think that summary execution in the street is a proper punishment for *checks notes* being suspected of counterfeiting a $20. And in the meantime the obvious murderer can rot in a cell somewhere. Sound like a deal?

What country would that be exactly?

I will level with you given the evidence I honestly believe a mixture of preexisting conditions and a drug overdose killed him. If anything the sensationalism of the trial destroyed any chance of it being held impartially. I honestly don't know why he elected a trial by jury to start with. It seems like a trial where you would want everything to be as cold and fact based as possible.

[s_bushido]

I will level with you given the evidence I honestly believe a mixture of preexisting conditions and a drug overdose killed him.

Yes, I'm sure most people in this particular forum are aware this is the obviously racist head-in-the-sand position taken by the right who are convinced that a cop couldn't have possibly killed someone for no good reason, and thus desperately need a reason for the black victim to have been the cause of his own death.