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

[Edge-]

Today in Double Standards in American Law Enforcement:

Nearly a thousand Ohio State students had a rave that resulted in 7 cars being flipped and the street being destroyed. No arrests were made despite multiple 911 calls - contrasting with the many incidents of peaceful protests being violently dispersed by police.



Funny how the police seem perfectly capable of restraining themselves from brutality when the people involved are mostly rich white kids.

Weren't we making this exact same observation like...7 years ago when a bunch of white people rioted over some fuckin pumpkins?

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-29695232

Oh right, we did. And it was pointed out how vastly different the law enforcement and general public responses were. I see we've come a long, long way in getting to the exact same place over the past 7 years.

[Elegiac]

Weren't we making this exact same observation like...7 years ago when a bunch of white people rioted over some fuckin pumpkins?

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-29695232

Oh right, we did. And it was pointed out how vastly different the law enforcement and general public responses were. I see we've come a long, long way in getting to the exact same place over the past 7 years.

And pretty much the entire point when people say "You can't reform this" - the problem is not with the concept of law enforcement, the problem is with law enforcement as Americans conceptualize it; i.e. one where police have no accountability and someone's culpability is more a factor of their demographic than their actual guilt.

At least Hammurabi was upfront about having different punishments for different social classes, lol.

[minteK917]

I cannot fathom how there is any possibility of her comments overturning a conviction. I get that it happened with another case, but that's just as batshit. There is no reasonable basis for such an action.

They have its called contamination of public opinion. Government officials arent supposed to weight in into trials like this. It can overturn conviction, even in Canada were we live. Its true for the US too. The state is the one enacting justice, in order to do it, representative of the government are called to not go after the deliberations. So yes, that was fucking dumb period. Doesent mean it will be overturned 100%, but why the fuck would you as an elected person even put trials in jeopardy for some fucking public clout. I think the general public know this case enough by now, nobody in the government needed to add their 2 cent to it. Why do you think Joe Biden is waiting after the verdict to make his public statement about it? Because the fucking president commenting on an ongoing trial will pretty much mean an instant overturn in an appeal court.

[Elegiac]

They have its called contamination of public opinion.

Cool, that's why jury sequestration exists and was put into place for this case.

What was your point again?

[minteK917]

Cool, that's why jury sequestration exists and was put into place for this case.

What was your point again?

That you should not be a fucking moron when people elect you to office and not risk giving people appeal court material for the hell of it? Whats the point of defending something we know back fires in the past... what logic is there? She is elected, be fucking smart.

[Endus]

why the fuck would you as an elected person even put trials in jeopardy for some fucking public clout.

Because they actually give a shit about concepts like "justice" and "racial equity" and "police brutality going unchecked"?

How is that not an expressly political set of issues?

Here's a tip; if this trial results in no conviction of Chauvin or a mistrial, then what "put the trial in jeopardy" is the Judge or jury's bias, the rules of the courts, and so on. Not what Waters said.

I mean, how dare she suggest people express their distaste to police officers. Those officers are special, fragile little fucking snowflakes who shouldn't be expected to let citizens express discontent in their presence.

[minteK917]

Because they actually give a shit about concepts like "justice" and "racial equity" and "police brutality going unchecked"?

How is that not an expressly political set of issues?

You can do that, without going mention of the trial itself.... Again you have proof this kind of stuff back fires. Why would you do it? So you think a public official should care more about feeling good, then caring this man goes to fucking jail like he deserves, nice to know.

[Elegiac]

That you should not be a fucking moron when people elect you to office and not risk giving people appeal court material for the hell of it? Whats the point of defending something we know back fires in the past... what logic is there? She is elected, be fucking smart.

Except this is not "for the hell of it", and if you think it's "for the hell of it" you haven't been paying attention over the past year.

Again, it's a silly thing to bitch about because jury sequestration exists and is tbh more likely a way to pin any acquittal on activists rather than a shitty judicial system.

- - - Updated - - -

You can do that, without going mention of the trial itself.... Again you have proof this kind of stuff back fires. Why would you do it? So you think a public official should care more about feeling good, then caring this man goes to fucking jail like he deserves, nice to know.

If the judicial system is so fragile that a comment by an official in an entirely different branch of government would influence a sequestered jury then how is that not evidence of exactly the sort of systemic failure that Waters is pointing out?

[Endus]

You can do that, without going mention of the trial itself.... Again you have proof this kind of stuff back fires. Why would you do it? So you think a public official should care more about feeling good, then caring this man goes to fucking jail like he deserves, nice to know.

Why wouldn't you mention the trial, when it's the central issue of the moment?

No, I care about things like justice more than I care about some judge's bullshit opinion that mouthing off to police outside his courtroom is terrible enough to declare a mistrial.

Again; Waters is not who would be responsible for Chauvin escaping justice, here. In any way whatsoever.

[minteK917]

Except this is not "for the hell of it", and if you think it's "for the hell of it" you haven't been paying attention over the past year.

Again, it's a silly thing to bitch about because jury sequestration exists and is tbh more likely a way to pin any acquittal on activists rather than a shitty judicial system.

Again you can do that, without going after the trial itself. Holy shit, shes not a random person. She not a random activist, shes a government representative. If it was a random activist it wouldnt have mattered for a possible appeal.

[Elegiac]

Again you can do that, without going after the trial itself. Holy shit, shes not a random person. She not a random activist, shes a government representative. If it was a random activist it wouldnt have mattered for a possible appeal.

"Get politics out of politics" is certainly an interesting tack, I'll give you that.

[Endus]

Again you can do that, without going after the trial itself.

You've made no argument why she shouldn't go after the trial itself.

Holy shit, shes not a random person. She not a random activist, shes a government representative. If it was a random activist it wouldnt have mattered for a possible appeal.

You literally have not explained why this matters, other than her comments hurt the Judge's and the police's precious widdle fee-fees.

[Elegiac]

You've made no argument why she shouldn't go after the trial itself.

You literally have not explained why this matters, other than her comments hurt the Judge's and the police's precious widdle fee-fees.

Also ignoring that these bitches invoke the "contamination of public opinion" defense by default regardless of who comments and that whether or not it's taken as legitimate by a judge is entirely a function of how biased the judge is.

Systemic problems are systemic, more at 11.

[Endus]

Also ignoring that these bitches invoke the "contamination of public opinion" defense by default regardless of who comments and that whether or not it's taken as legitimate by a judge is entirely a function of how biased the judge is.

Systemic problems are systemic, more at 11.

I've got zero patience for dishonest bullshit. But I don't have a lot more patience for empty tone-policing to protect bad faith actors. And that's basically what these reactions to Waters always boil down to; "How dare she say something biting and meaningful without couching it with such restraint that it can be freely ignored!"

[Edge-]

"A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot" -- Judge Cahill is not happy with Maxine Waters' comments about the Chauvin trial, but doesn't grant a defense motion for a mistrial

Remember when Trump live-tweeted during Marie Yavanovitch's testimony in front of Congress? And constantly attacked her? And no conservatives seemed to care? And conservative media didn't care? And there was no pearl clutching?

Those were fun, fun times!

[Endus]

"A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot" -- Judge Cahill is not happy with Maxine Waters' comments about the Chauvin trial, but doesn't grant a defense motion for a mistrial

I await the inevitable push for a mistrial on the grounds of "it's not fair if every potential juror knows how obviously guilty my client is! Especially when I have absolutely no evidence to clear him!"

[Muzjhath]

Remember when Trump live-tweeted during Marie Yavanovitch's testimony in front of Congress? And constantly attacked her? And no conservatives seemed to care? And conservative media didn't care? And there was no pearl clutching?

Those were fun, fun times!

Ofc they didn't.
That was a white man! We can do that sort of crap.

[Noxx79]

Again you can do that, without going after the trial itself. Holy shit, shes not a random person. She not a random activist, shes a government representative. If it was a random activist it wouldnt have mattered for a possible appeal.

There is a zero chance there will be a mistrial.

A) as both the defense and the judge agreed, they’re assuming jurors are following instructions and not watching the news.

B) the judge himself said she doesn’t matter.

C) you’d have to Show which juror changed their mind because of a random rep giving her opinion (which the defense LIED about anyway)

[AeneasBK]

Which evidence can you provide where the police have fatally shot somebody who wasn't a questionable threat to the lives of others?

I've missed good-faith posters, this site needs more of them.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...oo-much-on-his

“The state has really focused on the 9 minutes and 29 seconds, 9 minutes and 29 seconds, 9 minutes and 29 seconds. It's not the proper analysis because the 9 minutes and 29 seconds ignores the previous 15 minutes and 59 seconds, completely disregards,” the attorney said during the trial on Monday afternoon.

“It says in that moment, at that point, nothing else that happened before should be taken into consideration by a reasonable police officer. It tries to reframe the issue of what a reasonable police officer would do,” he continued.

Man, the defense complaining that the prosecution focused on the relevant 9 minutes and 29 seconds in this case? Damn shame that's inconvenient to the defense's arguments.

That they complaining about it is emblematic of just how insanely weak their defense case is.