The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Biden Administration Gears Up to Impose Double Jeopardy Upon Officer Chauvin
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times news section:

With New Grand Jury, Justice Department Revives Investigation Into Death of George Floyd

As the state murder trial of Derek Chauvin, the former officer charged in the death of George Floyd, approaches, the federal government has accelerated its own investigation.

By Tim Arango and Katie Benner
Feb. 23, 2021

A new federal grand jury has been empaneled in Minneapolis and the Justice Department has called new witnesses as part of its investigation of Derek Chauvin, the former police officer who will go on trial in state court next month on a murder charge for the death of George Floyd, according to two people with direct knowledge of the investigation.

The fresh slate of witnesses subpoenaed to give testimony about Mr. Chauvin is an early sign that the federal investigation into the death of Mr. Floyd, which began last year and then languished, is being reinvigorated under the administration of President Biden.

It is unlikely that the Justice Department, in presenting evidence to a new grand jury, is hoping for a quick indictment of Mr. Chauvin before his state trial, which is scheduled to begin March 8. But if there was an acquittal or a mistrial, attention would immediately shift to the federal investigation, and to whether Mr. Chauvin would face trial for violating Mr. Floyd’s civil rights. …

As The New York Times recently reported, three days after Mr. Floyd died on May 25, Mr. Chauvin was ready to plead guilty to third-degree murder and go to prison for more than a decade.

This leak, which perhaps came from Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison’s office, was a pretty bad abuse of the Constitution’s promise of an “impartial jury.”

By the way, it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died loaded with a potentially lethal level of fentanyl.

But the offer fell apart after Mr. Barr, at the last minute, rejected the deal, which had been contingent on the Justice Department’s agreement not to bring additional federal charges in the future.

You can’t even get your Constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy through a plea deal.

The Constitution reads “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” They don’t chop people’s limbs off too much anymore outside of Araby, so that has been generalized to mean that nobody shall be tried twice for the same crime.

Likewise, much of the literal language of the Constitution, such as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, originally didn’t apply to states. Connecticut, for example, had a state religion, Congregationalism, into the 19th Century. But overtime, constitutional rights were generalized to apply to states. For example, Wikipedia explains:

Although the Fifth Amendment initially applied only to the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the double jeopardy clause applies to the states as well through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment.

On the other hand, the federal Constitutions ban on double jeopard does not, curiously enough, apply to the federal government when it really feels like imposing double jeopardy on somebody who was acquitted in a state trial, such as the LAPD cops in the Rodney King case.

Now, yeah, sure, there are legalistic reasons for why trying an unpopular policeman first in state court, then overriding his acquittal with a trial for the exact same incident in federal court could be said, technically, not to be double jeopardy. But, c’mon, if these transparent obfuscations to get around the double jeopardy ban were being used against a class of person more popular with the higher courts, such as pornographers or flagburners, the Supreme Court would long ago have declared them unconstitutional.

 
Hide 290 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. You following what’s happening at the post office and this amber mcreynolds

  2. I can’t imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    But sadly. the administration of Justice is yet another institution that has been totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists and will stop at nothing to ruin the people they are against.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @Hypnotoad666

    "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, are you going to follow the law, or you going to prevent race riots"?

    Replies: @John Johnson, @PiltdownMan

    , @Art Deco
    @Hypnotoad666

    I can’t imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    Unless the prosecutor hits the jackpot (see the prosecution of Dharun Ravi in Middlesex County, NJ in 2011 for an example of that), there should be a critical mass on the jury to prevent a conviction. An acquittal would be quite surprising; I cannot imagine it would occur bar in circumstances where the Democratic voters on the jury are all people who do not have much emotional investment in public affairs. What Chauvin did do or did not do is a matter of indifference to gentry liberals and black chauvinists; he's a deplorable who arrested a black man, and that cannot stand.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Paperback Writer

    , @Louis Renault
    @Hypnotoad666

    You should get on a jury one day then you'll find out.

    , @Lurker
    @Hypnotoad666


    totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists
     
    So which is it left or fascist?

    Or by 'fascist' you just mean 'stuff I don't like'? In which case why not use 'communist'?

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @anon

    , @Paul Jolliffe
    @Hypnotoad666

    The Romans (maybe) claimed “fiat justitia, ruat caelum” - “let justice be done though the heavens fall”.

    If so, then they were braver, smarter, and more honest than we are.

    , @Paul Jolliffe
    @Hypnotoad666

    By the way, I predicted with 100% certainty this very development here months ago.

  3. @Hypnotoad666
    I can't imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    But sadly. the administration of Justice is yet another institution that has been totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists and will stop at nothing to ruin the people they are against.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Art Deco, @Louis Renault, @Lurker, @Paul Jolliffe, @Paul Jolliffe

    “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, are you going to follow the law, or you going to prevent race riots”?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Redneck farmer

    “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, are you going to follow the law, or you going to prevent race riots”?

    This is exactly what will happen which is why I don't see the point in laboriously going over the evidence.

    They are going to try to get as many Blacks on the jury as possible and then give them the choice of conviction or let the city burn.

    The prosecution recently added a third degree murder charge option which shows they have a weak hand. If he actually gets second degree it will later be appealed and reduced once Blacks and liberals have moved on to another case.

    Floyd was on multiple drugs, had serious heart problems and a case of covid. It's impossible to prove that Chauvin killed him. This is a weak case and they should have plea bargained right away.

    , @PiltdownMan
    @Redneck farmer

    https://youtu.be/K4ISkOg4Wvc

  4. They did this to the officers with Rodney King, no? And there was earlier video showing him attacking the officers that never made it out of the courtroom?

    I was in my early teenage years so I don’t remember all the details.

    • Replies: @Icy Blast
    @SFG

    Bush Senior ordered the officers who arrested Rodney King to be tried a second time. They were, he got verdict he wanted, and Democrats, declared as well as those (like Bush Senior himself) in disguise, danced in the streets. I saw Daryl Gates at a local grocery store once, I asked him about this, and he just ignored me.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer

    , @Morton's toes
    @SFG

    I distinctly recall asking a tennis acquaintance who was a judge how this wasn't double jeopardy. There are not many clear memories of 1993 that I possess but this is crystalline.

    "This ain't double jeopardy?"

    "Nope. Different statute."

    Also implied: dumb question. (I am not a lawyer.)

    That guy with the videotape machine was a fool. They prosecuted the guys who attacked R. Denny in the aftermath riot on video. I wonder if they would be inclined to do that in 2021?

  5. The fresh slate of witnesses subpoenaed to give testimony about Mr. Chauvin is an early sign that the federal investigation into the death of Mr. Floyd, which began last year and then languished, is being reinvigorated under the administration of President Biden.

    That’s why Biden is so busy. He’s been “reinvigorating” things left and right. The war on Afghanistan, the vaccine delivery, the Texan cold spells, Kids in Cages, the bitcoin rally etc. etc.

    You can’t even get your Constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy through a plea deal.

    Maybe SCOTUS should get to work? What do they do all day? Tweet? Writing letters justifying why they refuse to do their job of looking into Pennsylvania election cases?

    Not getting out of these Soviet times and rule of non-law without a pillow fight, I say.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @El Dato


    Not getting out of these Soviet times and rule of non-law without a pillow fight, I say.
     
    Ok, 1 caveat though: It might cause some problems if My Pillow pillows would be used in such a fight. Mike Lindell is one of the hard selling types:


    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/larry-johnson-hammer-scorecard-real/

    , @houston 1992
    @El Dato

    For the problem of Double Jeopardy, SCOTUS does not even bother weaseling out of the injustice using the weasel words of Justice O'Connor's 2003 ruling upholding affirmative action that it would no longer be needed after 2028.

    2)btw how is Chauvin paying his lawyer for the state trial? Do police get offered litigation insurance?

  6. Why don’t they cut to Final Jeopardy and give his service pistol back the poor fellow?

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @The Alarmist

    In fact, give him a revolver and one bullet and let him do trial by Russian Roulette... the odds would be much better for him than trusting the justice system.

  7. In the sixties, when the Supreme Court was grossly expanding the original meanings of those Bill of Rights amendments that it liked, it wanted to allow Federal jurisdiction in cases of whites accused of murdering blacks in the south who were acquitted by state courts. So it interpreted the double-jeopardy ban in light of an 1180s Statute of Westminster, which allowed the king to prosecute a crime already tried by a local English Court.

    You gotta love lawyers.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Louis Renault
    @Henry Canaday

    They'll just charge him with different crimes that he wasn't charged with originally. There must be a dozens on the books.

    Replies: @donut

  8. But overtime, constitutional rights were generalized to apply to states. For example,..

    Extentions of limitations on the Federal gov’t to State governments is called incorporation of parts of the Bill of Rights, in this case, Amendment V.

    I’m in full agreement with your objection against the double jeopardy, but why all this muh Constitution from you? I haven’t read much from you about Amendment X, when the subject is US gov’t programs, or Amendment I regarding freedom of Association. How is Affirmative Action Constitutional, BTW? Muh Constitution, ha!! That stuff’s for silly Libertards, right?

    • Agree: Mike Tre
    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The covid19th Amendment states that state and federal officials can impose dress codes, restrict freedom of movement and abuse children whenever old men get scared of dying.

  9. But the offer fell apart after Mr. Barr, at the last minute, rejected the deal, which had been contingent on the Justice Department’s agreement not to bring additional federal charges in the future.

    Goes to show us all what a double dealing scumbag Bill Barr was. Even if Trump got re-elected he likely would have caved to political pressure and tried Chauvin on federal civil rights violations if he beats the state rap.

    A person should not be able to retried in federal court in they are acquitted at the state level. The feds and the state should be forced to decide who will try a person but this political terrorism and totalitarian bullshit has to end.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  10. @SFG
    They did this to the officers with Rodney King, no? And there was earlier video showing him attacking the officers that never made it out of the courtroom?

    I was in my early teenage years so I don't remember all the details.

    Replies: @Icy Blast, @Morton's toes

    Bush Senior ordered the officers who arrested Rodney King to be tried a second time. They were, he got verdict he wanted, and Democrats, declared as well as those (like Bush Senior himself) in disguise, danced in the streets. I saw Daryl Gates at a local grocery store once, I asked him about this, and he just ignored me.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Icy Blast


    I saw Daryl Gates at a local grocery store once, I asked him about this, and he just ignored me.
     
    I met a previous mayor of Minneapolis in a grocery store (in St Paul-- scandal!), Sharon Sayles Belton, and a second time at work. She was quite friendly and genuine in an Aunt Jemima way. One can imagine how she would have been with someone of consequence, say, Bill Clinton when they passed me on a downtown street in a limo. ("Sharon, keep your head visible at all times!")

    Where does Mayor Frey get his groceries? Certainly not Cub Foods, let alone CUP Foods. His wife or servant or security detail probably does it for him, especially now. Hell, it's probably all delivered.


    https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15909630/2020/05/IMG_7995.jpg?w=1500
    , @Paperback Writer
    @Icy Blast

    Yeah, but how and why were the officers nailed the 2nd time? The first time the jury let them off because there was incontrovertible evidence that King had resisted arrest. He was just being tasered, anyway - it looked terrible but wasn't. He was fine afterwards. So what did they get him on?

  11. @Hypnotoad666
    I can't imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    But sadly. the administration of Justice is yet another institution that has been totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists and will stop at nothing to ruin the people they are against.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Art Deco, @Louis Renault, @Lurker, @Paul Jolliffe, @Paul Jolliffe

    I can’t imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    Unless the prosecutor hits the jackpot (see the prosecution of Dharun Ravi in Middlesex County, NJ in 2011 for an example of that), there should be a critical mass on the jury to prevent a conviction. An acquittal would be quite surprising; I cannot imagine it would occur bar in circumstances where the Democratic voters on the jury are all people who do not have much emotional investment in public affairs. What Chauvin did do or did not do is a matter of indifference to gentry liberals and black chauvinists; he’s a deplorable who arrested a black man, and that cannot stand.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    @Art Deco

    Agreed. I can't see a scenario where a jury of Ilhan Omar voters gives him an acquittal even though he is absurdly overcharged. A few the Noor jurors expressed reluctance to convict him afterwords because he was a Somali. The Freddy Gray cops in Baltimore had success with requesting a trial by judge, but I don't know if that would work for Chauvin in this case.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Art Deco

    That's hard to say. So much has changed in the last year, it's dizzying.

    Recall the Amadou Diallo case. Sympathetic victim, unlike Fentanyl George, who once held a gun to a pregnant woman's abdomen. Diallo happened to resemble a neighborhood rape suspect and made the mistake of reaching for his wallet to show his ID to the cops because he wasn't American. The cops thought it was a gun. Tragedy ensued.

    The city was in an uproar & the venue had to be moved upstate. Four blacks on the jury, black forewoman who had once lived in the Bronx. Everyone I knew thought they were a hanging jury.

    They acquitted. The forewoman was asked how she felt about people who didn't accept the verdict. She said, "tough."

    Nothing happened, even with Al Sharpton on the case.

    But that was 1999, this is 2021. We'll see if they can find 12 people with the guts of that jury.

    https://www.gothamgazette.com/criminal-justice/1615-lessons-and-legacy-of-amadou-diallo

  12. “By the way, it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died loaded with a potentially lethal level of fentanyl.”

    Over at the linked NYT article, I got nothing for “^F fen”.

    Steve, you made a mistake. There’s no way the Times’ ace reporters (Tim a grizzled Baghdad bureau chief and Katie a Pulitzer Prize winner) would have missed a fact that, if true, completely changes the thrust of the article.

    Some random blogger isn’t better at News than America’s Paper of Record. Just doesn’t happen.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @ic1000

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide.

    Of course any time somebody's charged with a high profile capital offense, their lawyers are going to throw up all kinds of smokescreens in an attempt to influence the potential jury pool.

    That is what lawyers do. It is just part of the process.

    Replies: @ic1000, @Redman, @Genrick Yagoda, @Art Deco, @Mr. Anon, @Hanoi Paris Hilton

  13. C’mon, Steve! You’re suggesting “our” federal government should not split Talmudic short-hairs when dealing with our Constitutional rights! You’re attempting to usurp the divine right of litigators!

  14. @ic1000
    "By the way, it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died loaded with a potentially lethal level of fentanyl."

    Over at the linked NYT article, I got nothing for "^F fen".

    Steve, you made a mistake. There's no way the Times' ace reporters (Tim a grizzled Baghdad bureau chief and Katie a Pulitzer Prize winner) would have missed a fact that, if true, completely changes the thrust of the article.

    Some random blogger isn't better at News than America's Paper of Record. Just doesn't happen.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide.

    Of course any time somebody’s charged with a high profile capital offense, their lawyers are going to throw up all kinds of smokescreens in an attempt to influence the potential jury pool.

    That is what lawyers do. It is just part of the process.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    @Jonathan Mason

    > From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    From what you can see. Well put.

    "One would need the history of Floyd’s drug use to put his 11 ng/mL (plus 5.6 ng/mL norfentanyl) in context, beyond saying, 'that would be enough to kill most people, but some very tolerant people could survive it.'"

    But of course that wasn't my point. It was this: In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin's legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers.

    When nearly all errors of commission and omission favor a particular narrative, is error the correct word?

    Replies: @Redman, @Calvin Hobbes, @Corvinus

    , @Redman
    @Jonathan Mason

    What in god’s name are you talking about? Have you seen the bodycam footage?

    The entire process of the arrest was premised on the fact that Floyd was having a delirium episode based on a presumed drug overdose. Floyd had a very similar episode involving cops exactly one year before this.

    The cops here were trying to keep him stable until the ambulance arrived. This was part of MPD written protocol for handling delirium episodes.

    Maybe we should arrest and convict every “frontline hero” who put a Covid patient on a ventilator and thereby “hastened their demise”?

    , @Genrick Yagoda
    @Jonathan Mason

    The autopsy report list the amount of Fentanyl, which was 3 times the amount of a previously shown lethal dose.

    The body cams show Floyd was already dying of a Fentanyl overdose before the cops even attempted to put him in the car, as shown by Floyd claiming repeatedly that he "can't breathe" while standing up and restrained only by the elbows.

    The police did not "hasten his demise" in any way, shape, or form.

    Apparently, you don't see very much.

    , @Art Deco
    @Jonathan Mason

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.



    The level of fentanyl in his femoral blood was 11.3 nanograms per cc. That's a middle-of-the-road value for an overdose death. (I did a meatball literature review). He was complaining about his breathing when he was upright and before he was placed on the sidewalk. His trachea and his neck muscles were uninjured. One of the effects of high doses of fentanyl is that your lungs fill with fluid.

    Replies: @Jack D, @gcochran

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Jonathan Mason


    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.
     
    He had enough fentanyl in his system to be lethal to some people. What is lethal to him would depend on his particular circumstances. But in principal, it was a lethal dose. He also had THC and meth in his system. And he had heart disease. And Corona virus. Moreover, almost the exact same set of circumstances as happened last May had happened a year before:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/19-days-before-his-death-george-floyd-swallowed-drugs-when-arrested/

    He was arrested, swallowed his stash, and had to be taken to the Hospital for an OD.

    Replies: @Redman, @ic1000

    , @Hanoi Paris Hilton
    @Jonathan Mason

    The coroners report and autopsy of Floyd quitely released within days of his death —but effectively buried politically for obvious ideological advantage by the likes of MN A.G. Keith Ellison— determined that the level of fentanyl and fentanyl metabolites already in Floyd's bloodstream was at least twice and likely four times the "LD50", i.e., the dosage required to kill half those displaying it. Floyds' blood levels of methamphetamines, cocaine, and cannabinoids were also significant (if probably not in themselves fatal).

    Floyd didn't violently resist arrest and admitted freely that he had just "hooped", i.e., inserted anally, his remaining stash of fentanyl... likely trying to reduce his criminal liabilities (beyond passing the counterfeit $20 bill), if that stash were to be found intact on his person.

    While from the moment of his arrest (the police had been warned in advance by the complainant shopkeeper that Floyd's behavior was extremely unhinged) Floyd was acting terrified and irrational, heart-breakingly crying out for his late mother, the hooping no doubt significantly increased his fentanyl intoxication. The autopsy also shows Floyd's lungs to weigh three times the expected amount, indicating they were almost completely fluid-filled; a characteristic of fentanyl toxicology, and indicative that his "I can't breathe" pleas weren't a shabby ploy.

    Floyd's petty criminality subsequent to his spending five years in prison appeared not to have been notably thuggish or violent. He wasn't an evil man and may well have been trying to get his life in order, but his drug-induced cessation of breathing and unconsciousness some forty minutes after his initial arrest was entirely a result of his own actions and his misdirected life choices.

    Replies: @By-tor

  15. Well look at the OJ Simpson case. He got off on the horrific murder charges and then was sent to prison for 17 years for a relatively trivial charge concerning a dispute over some memorabilia that was made out to be akin to a major bank robbery.

    So you get off on a murder charge at the state level, and then you are judged with violating somebody’s civil rights at the federal level. Or with killing somebody while not wearing a mask, or something.

    It is a feature, not a bug, of the US legal system that people are charged with horrific sounding offenses for actions that are actually quite trivial, and that to avoid a trial the offenses are bargained down to something a bit more realistic.

    I don’t know whether the supreme Court has ever ruled on whether plea bargaining is constitutional, but you have to love our whacky legal system! It’s what makes America great.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jonathan Mason

    You will note that I clicked the "Agree" button for you, but you must also know that OJ Simpson is probably not the best example you could have used. You used him because he is famous.

    Yep, famous, all right. A famous example of jury nullification.

    He received a maximum-type penalty for the latter crime, but it was within sentencing guidelines. Practically everyone of reason understood why and was happy about it.

    Again, you need to find a better example.

    You left out the civil case for the deaths, which he lost to the tune of millions of dollars -- essentially bankrupting him if he wasn't already bankrupt from previous legal fees. (Gotta love the lawyer business! Save your client and then take everything he owns from him.)

    Pick another example. Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Curmudgeon, @Macumazahn, @Anon

    , @Hibernian
    @Jonathan Mason


    a relatively trivial charge concerning a dispute over some memorabilia that was made out to be akin to a major bank robbery.
     
    Solving that dispute by brandishing a firearm is armed robbery, although not of a bank and therefore not under Federal jurisdiction. To what extent they could legitimately consider the wrongful death civil liability, I don't know. Other aspects of his character, some related to the death of Nicole and Ron and some not, may have played a role in his sentencing. Also, Nevada is not California.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois

    , @Redman
    @Jonathan Mason

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept of plea bargaining. It actually “helps” the majority of criminals avoid harsher punishments than they usually deserve under the law.

    The assurance of a fair trial is intended to obviate the prosecution from “overcharging” defendants. It’s only when the media (and then the public) “demands justice” for some specific crime, say child porn or domestic terrorism or hate crimes, that the government is given a free hand to push the envelope. It’s the media and the media alone that dictates how far these governmental bureaucrats can go.

    , @William Badwhite
    @Jonathan Mason


    I don’t know
     
    This was the only accurate (and relevant) part of your post, as usual.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    , @Deep Anonymous
    @Jonathan Mason

    Yes, the Supreme Court has held that plea bargains are generally permissible (and certainly not unconstitutional). Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).

    "The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called "plea bargaining," is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged. If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States and the Federal Government would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities." Id. at 260.

    Nonetheless, due process applies---if a guilty plea is induced by a promise by the prosecutor, that promise generally is enforeceable, and in that case, the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor had breached the plea agreement and vacated the sentence.

  16. @Achmed E. Newman

    But overtime, constitutional rights were generalized to apply to states. For example,..
     
    Extentions of limitations on the Federal gov't to State governments is called incorporation of parts of the Bill of Rights, in this case, Amendment V.

    I'm in full agreement with your objection against the double jeopardy, but why all this muh Constitution from you? I haven't read much from you about Amendment X, when the subject is US gov't programs, or Amendment I regarding freedom of Association. How is Affirmative Action Constitutional, BTW? Muh Constitution, ha!! That stuff's for silly Libertards, right?

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    The covid19th Amendment states that state and federal officials can impose dress codes, restrict freedom of movement and abuse children whenever old men get scared of dying.

  17. @Jonathan Mason
    Well look at the OJ Simpson case. He got off on the horrific murder charges and then was sent to prison for 17 years for a relatively trivial charge concerning a dispute over some memorabilia that was made out to be akin to a major bank robbery.

    So you get off on a murder charge at the state level, and then you are judged with violating somebody's civil rights at the federal level. Or with killing somebody while not wearing a mask, or something.

    It is a feature, not a bug, of the US legal system that people are charged with horrific sounding offenses for actions that are actually quite trivial, and that to avoid a trial the offenses are bargained down to something a bit more realistic.

    I don't know whether the supreme Court has ever ruled on whether plea bargaining is constitutional, but you have to love our whacky legal system! It's what makes America great.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Hibernian, @Redman, @William Badwhite, @Deep Anonymous

    You will note that I clicked the “Agree” button for you, but you must also know that OJ Simpson is probably not the best example you could have used. You used him because he is famous.

    Yep, famous, all right. A famous example of jury nullification.

    He received a maximum-type penalty for the latter crime, but it was within sentencing guidelines. Practically everyone of reason understood why and was happy about it.

    Again, you need to find a better example.

    You left out the civil case for the deaths, which he lost to the tune of millions of dollars — essentially bankrupting him if he wasn’t already bankrupt from previous legal fees. (Gotta love the lawyer business! Save your client and then take everything he owns from him.)

    Pick another example. Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead.

    • Agree: Redman
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Gotta love the lawyer business! Save your client and then take everything he owns from him.)
     
    Well to be fair, no one forced Simpson to hire, like, 12 of the highest paid lawyers in America. Or however many it was.

    Simpson was nearly broke because he hired so many high-priced lawyers. He hired so many high-priced lawyers because he was guilty, but didn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. He considered his money for his freedom to be a fair trade.

    Ultimately he served only nine years in prison for the robbery charge. It may not be normal, nowadays, for someone to serve nine years in prison for robbery, even if no guns or kidnapping was involved, but it’s hardly unknown, and was probably quite common 200 years ago, when the Constitution was still fresh.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jonathan Mason

    , @Curmudgeon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I am not saying Simpson is innocent, but a retired judge told me that what most people don't recognize about Simpson's trial, was the vast amount of evidence, ruled inadmissible, that the public heard, but the jury didn't. He also said a huge flaw in the prosecution, from his perspective,was that the police saw Simpson as the one and only suspect. They essentially ignored all other possibilities, including the drug debt allegedly owed by Goldman.
    One of the secretaries in our office re-typed court transcripts for a local "wrongfully convicted" group. She was familiar with court jargon. She paid a great deal of attention to Simpson's case (I couldn't have cared less) and was convinced that there was reasonable doubt, given the very narrow window of opportunity. Reasonable doubt is another way of saying not proven, which does not mean not guilty.
    I came to the conclusion that the prosecution simply screwed up. If you can't conduct a proper chain of possession for blood evidence (LAPD) then your entire investigation becomes suspect. The "revenge" on Simpson was for exposing the clown show that passed as an investigation and prosecution, not for the verdict.
    Was he guilty? Probably, but that is only a guess. On the other hand, I have no sympathy for mud sharks, particularly when they jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
    As for his "armed robbery" If I remember correctly, the articles he went to retrieve were actually his, not the people who had them in their possession.
    For what it is worth, IMO Chauvin doesn't have a chance. It is impossible for him to have an impartial jury in Mini-no-place. It really wouldn't matter where the trial would be held. The well has been poisoned. If he chose to waive a jury trial, no judge would follow the law at the risk of losing office. He's doomed, no matter what the evidence is.

    Replies: @David In TN, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Macumazahn
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead.
     
    Agree 100% But... once he beat that rap, it was clearly simple justice-system vengeance to trump up the charges against him for that memorabilia dispute. "We finally got the sumbitch" isn't the sort of justice we should have in America - especially when the original acquittal was the direct result of crap-for-brains incompetence on the part of the prosecutors, and a biased judge on the bench. Lance Ito allowed the proceeding to become a trial of Mark Fuhrman's alleged racism, and Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden were, quite simply, imbeciles. The glove fiasco made it all-too-easy for the jury to do what they wanted to do and let the famous affleet walk free. I don't think I've ever seen anything so stupid transpire in open court.
    25 years later, how many people even remember that among OJ's "dream team" of defense attorneys was one Robert Kardashian? Truly a gift that keeps on giving, just like herpes.
    , @Anon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    "Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead."

    Chad OJ the punisher, you white cucks wouldn't have turned out like the battered housewives you are had you lots of OJs.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  18. New court docs say George Floyd had “fatal level” of fentanyl in his system
    Author: Lou Raguse
    Published: August 26, 2020

    Handwritten notes of a law enforcement interview with Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, say Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system.

    “If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3,” Baker told investigators.

    In another new document, Baker said, “That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”

    But then Baker added, “I am not saying this killed him.”

    Suppose George Floyd had no drugs in his system and the police officer had garroted him to death. The excuse for applying double jeopardy, other than preventing more riots, is that a civil rights offense is separate and distinct from the underlying crime by which civil rights were violated. If the police officer was thinking, “I’m gonna kill this guy”, that’s just murder. If he was thinking, “I’m gonna kill this N-word”, that thought is a separate crime for which he can be tried separately and in another (federal rather than state) jurisdiction. He may even be subject to triple jeopardy, with that N-word thought being both a state offense and a federal offense. If George Floyd were white, and the police officer black, and the police officer were thinking, I’m gonna kill this W-word, well, that’s not a civil rights offense because Slavery, Jim Crow and wanton hair-touching.

    On the subject of black women’s hair, has Joe Biden ever sniffed it, or does he only sniff white women’s hair?

  19. @Jonathan Mason
    Well look at the OJ Simpson case. He got off on the horrific murder charges and then was sent to prison for 17 years for a relatively trivial charge concerning a dispute over some memorabilia that was made out to be akin to a major bank robbery.

    So you get off on a murder charge at the state level, and then you are judged with violating somebody's civil rights at the federal level. Or with killing somebody while not wearing a mask, or something.

    It is a feature, not a bug, of the US legal system that people are charged with horrific sounding offenses for actions that are actually quite trivial, and that to avoid a trial the offenses are bargained down to something a bit more realistic.

    I don't know whether the supreme Court has ever ruled on whether plea bargaining is constitutional, but you have to love our whacky legal system! It's what makes America great.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Hibernian, @Redman, @William Badwhite, @Deep Anonymous

    a relatively trivial charge concerning a dispute over some memorabilia that was made out to be akin to a major bank robbery.

    Solving that dispute by brandishing a firearm is armed robbery, although not of a bank and therefore not under Federal jurisdiction. To what extent they could legitimately consider the wrongful death civil liability, I don’t know. Other aspects of his character, some related to the death of Nicole and Ron and some not, may have played a role in his sentencing. Also, Nevada is not California.

    • Thanks: HammerJack
    • Replies: @petit bourgeois
    @Hibernian

    Nevada may not be California, but more than half of Nevada jurisprudence is based upon California law. I've seen it with my own two beady eyes. When a state has no established law, it borrows from its neighbor.

    Shit, there wasn't even a law school in Nevada until 1998. Until 2001, every lawyer from Nevada was educated out of state.

    OJ Simpson deserved some comeuppance in Nevada.

    Replies: @Polistra

  20. @Jonathan Mason
    @ic1000

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide.

    Of course any time somebody's charged with a high profile capital offense, their lawyers are going to throw up all kinds of smokescreens in an attempt to influence the potential jury pool.

    That is what lawyers do. It is just part of the process.

    Replies: @ic1000, @Redman, @Genrick Yagoda, @Art Deco, @Mr. Anon, @Hanoi Paris Hilton

    > From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    From what you can see. Well put.

    “One would need the history of Floyd’s drug use to put his 11 ng/mL (plus 5.6 ng/mL norfentanyl) in context, beyond saying, ‘that would be enough to kill most people, but some very tolerant people could survive it.’”

    But of course that wasn’t my point. It was this: In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin’s legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers.

    When nearly all errors of commission and omission favor a particular narrative, is error the correct word?

    • Agree: Rob McX, HammerJack
    • Replies: @Redman
    @ic1000

    Worse than the fentanyl omission IMO is the intentional failure to publicize the bodycam footage. The media is in total unison in keeping the public unaware of this highly exculpatory evidence.

    Here is one of the biggest US stories in a decade, and the media is openly colluding with the government to help ensure a conviction. This is beyond Orwell and well into Kafka.

    , @Calvin Hobbes
    @ic1000


    When nearly all errors of commission and omission favor a particular narrative, is error the correct word?
     
    The relationship of the NYT to lying is like the way Marlene Dietrich sang about her relationship to love.

    Das Massenmedien Lied

    Here’s a little song I wrote.
    You might want to sing it note for note. (See below for the tune.)

    It’s about our mass media, the NYT in particular.
    It’s in German, which is a bit appropriate, since we’re reenacting the pre-Hitler glory days of Antifa in Germany, and since Merrick Garland is regurgitating the mass media Big Lies about Antifa.

    This being Black History Month, I used the MLK method to “write” the song. It’s 99% plagiarized from a Marlene Dietrich song from 1930, with words for “love” replaced by words for “lie”, and first-person singular replaced by first-person plural. And, here it is:

    Das Massenmedien Lied

    Wir sind von Kopf bis Fuß
    Auf lügen eingestellt,
    Denn das ist unsere Welt.
    Und sonst gar nichts.
    Das ist, was sollen wir machen,
    Unsere Natur,
    Wir können lügen nur
    Und sonst gar nichts.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL8A0F0DAA330EC2D6&time_continue=1&v=xntJCG8oL2s&feature=emb_logo

    Computer translation into English (pretty good!):

    We are from head to toe
    Set to lie,
    Because this is our world.
    And nothing else.
    This is what we are to do,
    Our nature,
    We can only lie
    And nothing else.

    , @Corvinus
    @ic1000

    "In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin’s legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers."

    Assuming the two individuals knew about that finding and neglected to present it, or made a conscious decision not to include that key finding that they knew. And, of course, you are assuming that most of the readers are not aware of that nugget. But perhaps it doesn't bother you that Mr. Sailer has neglected to mention key facts or findings in his own reporting. I did provide him some advice to Urkel--By the way, it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breath, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl.

    Regardless, Mason's point remains valid--"Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide".

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @ic1000

  21. “On the other hand, the federal Constitutions ban on double jeopard does not, curiously enough, apply to the federal government when it really feels like imposing double jeopardy on somebody who was acquitted in a state trial, such as the LAPD cops in the Rodney King case.”

    Then this would definitely be the landmark case of the 21st Century, if Officer Chauvin sues the Federal Government for double jeopardy, and the Supreme Court would have to rule on whether or not the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause is applicable to the federal government.

    Chauvin might win the argument, seeing the makeup of the court. He might.

    On a lighter note…

    Steve, I am surprised that as a golf aficionado, you have not directly commented on Eldrick; he’s recently been in the news last few days.

    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Dude, are you kidding? The Most Supremo Court Evah already has their dodge ready to hand. They won't hear the case due to "lack of standing". Then they stride away, dusting their hands of the whole thing.

  22. There was an Army lawyer assigned to my unit. He became a state judge. In a discussion among the officers about double jeopardy he was smug about (the gist) “it’s not double jeopardy when it is done in sequence by different jurisdictions and there are slightly different charges.” This is what happened to the police officers in the Rodney King incident.

  23. @Jonathan Mason
    @ic1000

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide.

    Of course any time somebody's charged with a high profile capital offense, their lawyers are going to throw up all kinds of smokescreens in an attempt to influence the potential jury pool.

    That is what lawyers do. It is just part of the process.

    Replies: @ic1000, @Redman, @Genrick Yagoda, @Art Deco, @Mr. Anon, @Hanoi Paris Hilton

    What in god’s name are you talking about? Have you seen the bodycam footage?

    The entire process of the arrest was premised on the fact that Floyd was having a delirium episode based on a presumed drug overdose. Floyd had a very similar episode involving cops exactly one year before this.

    The cops here were trying to keep him stable until the ambulance arrived. This was part of MPD written protocol for handling delirium episodes.

    Maybe we should arrest and convict every “frontline hero” who put a Covid patient on a ventilator and thereby “hastened their demise”?

    • Agree: John Henry, Ron Mexico
  24. As Comrade Beria said, “you give me the man, I’ll show you the crime.”

    • Agree: Hibernian
  25. @Jonathan Mason
    @ic1000

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide.

    Of course any time somebody's charged with a high profile capital offense, their lawyers are going to throw up all kinds of smokescreens in an attempt to influence the potential jury pool.

    That is what lawyers do. It is just part of the process.

    Replies: @ic1000, @Redman, @Genrick Yagoda, @Art Deco, @Mr. Anon, @Hanoi Paris Hilton

    The autopsy report list the amount of Fentanyl, which was 3 times the amount of a previously shown lethal dose.

    The body cams show Floyd was already dying of a Fentanyl overdose before the cops even attempted to put him in the car, as shown by Floyd claiming repeatedly that he “can’t breathe” while standing up and restrained only by the elbows.

    The police did not “hasten his demise” in any way, shape, or form.

    Apparently, you don’t see very much.

    • Agree: Calvin Hobbes
  26. @ic1000
    @Jonathan Mason

    > From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    From what you can see. Well put.

    "One would need the history of Floyd’s drug use to put his 11 ng/mL (plus 5.6 ng/mL norfentanyl) in context, beyond saying, 'that would be enough to kill most people, but some very tolerant people could survive it.'"

    But of course that wasn't my point. It was this: In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin's legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers.

    When nearly all errors of commission and omission favor a particular narrative, is error the correct word?

    Replies: @Redman, @Calvin Hobbes, @Corvinus

    Worse than the fentanyl omission IMO is the intentional failure to publicize the bodycam footage. The media is in total unison in keeping the public unaware of this highly exculpatory evidence.

    Here is one of the biggest US stories in a decade, and the media is openly colluding with the government to help ensure a conviction. This is beyond Orwell and well into Kafka.

  27. Everyone has seen the video of St. Floyd standing outside the car and then sitting inside the car complaining that “he can’t breathe” while the officer says “it’s ok. i’ll roll down the windows”?

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/george-floyd-police-body-cam-video-1.5682285
    Maybe Ellison will be so good as to re-enact it for us and star as Floyd.

  28. Steve, I realize there’s too much iSteve content to keep up with, but NYT has unmasked a hate hoax:

    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    @Percy Gryce

    Also there's a new front in WWT:

    https://twitter.com/percy_gryce/status/1364442224776384514?s=20

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Stan Adams, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Tono Bungay
    @Percy Gryce

    I didn't read the whole NYT story about the Smith College brouhaha, but I was surprised by what I did read, in that it really did give both sides of the story, something I'd thought the Times was no longer capable of. But it is still astonishing how wacky and ideology-addled these university administrators are!

    Replies: @Ragno, @additionalMike

    , @Ripple Earthdevil
    @Percy Gryce

    Taking a quick look at the comments they are overwhelmingly of the opinion that the black, excuse me, Black, student as well as the college's reaction was way out of line. I'm also willing to bet that 90+% of the commenters have voted Democrat their entire lives and have zero self-awareness that their own ideology helped bring this about.

    , @Polistra
    @Percy Gryce

    Needless to say, it wasn't the NYT that unmasked anything.

    Also, it belongs in this thread, where it is already:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/blm-rakes-in-90-million-in-2020/#comment-4490455

    , @PiltdownMan
    @Percy Gryce

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/whistleblower-at-smith-college-resigns

  29. Biden Administration Gears Up to Impose Double Jeopardy Upon Officer Chauvin

    Just wait until they get to the clause that says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” if you want to see how much they DGAF about the Constitution.

    While we’re on the subject of blatantly ignoring the black-letter law of the Constitution, now the Democrats want to take away the power of the President to launch nuclear weapons without getting the approval of the Speaker of the House — a clear violation of Article II, “the president shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy…”

    https://nypost.com/2021/02/25/democrats-ask-biden-to-give-up-power-to-launch-nuclear-bomb/

  30. @Percy Gryce
    Steve, I realize there's too much iSteve content to keep up with, but NYT has unmasked a hate hoax:

    https://twitter.com/powellnyt/status/1364676518836903939?s=20

    Replies: @Percy Gryce, @Tono Bungay, @Ripple Earthdevil, @Polistra, @PiltdownMan

    Also there’s a new front in WWT:

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Percy Gryce

    When Harry Became Sally!!

    How can I even make good jokes anymore? Nobody will know whether they should get them or not.

    , @Stan Adams
    @Percy Gryce

    I’ll have what s/he/it’s having.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Percy Gryce

    And Sally became hairy.


    https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5bebdf481f0000ff042635f9.jpeg

  31. As The New York Times recently reported, three days after Mr. Floyd died on May 25, Mr. Chauvin was ready to plead guilty to third-degree murder and go to prison for more than a decade.

    Why on earth would he plead guilty to third-degree murder for Floyd’s death, especially within three days of the incident? Is that report plausible?

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    @Anonymous

    The NYT repeatedly fabricates reports, or knowingly repeats fabricated information if it is politically useful. In this case they probably either made up the report or repeated something said by Ellison in an attempt to start biasing the jury pool.
    Modern journalists are taught that their sacred duty is to remake the universe as a better place BAMN. They aren’t interested in whether something is plausible, they just want to know if it is useful and if so, will their target audience swallow it.

    , @fish
    @Anonymous


    Why on earth would he plead guilty to third-degree murder for Floyd’s death, especially within three days of the incident? Is that report plausible?
     
    He knows that he was to be fed to the mob. Maybe he gets a quiet year or two on the backside of the sentence if he cops to it!
    , @vhrm
    @Anonymous


    Why on earth would he plead guilty to third-degree murder for Floyd’s death, especially within three days of the incident? Is that report plausible?
     
    idk any details about this deal, but possibly because they convinced him that he killed Floyd and threatened him with murder 1, under color of authority, etc. and told him they'd throw the book at him and he'd spend his life in solitary "for his protection" (or alternately that they'd throw him into the general population at a maximum security prison where his life expectancy would be what? weeks? months?)

    The racial angle of BLM is mostly BS, but there's a lot about our law enforcement, judicial system, and penal systems that is pretty regressive...

    , @R.G. Camara
    @Anonymous

    You really should read the book "Three Felonies a Day." It's eye opening about how many innocent people will choose to plead guilty rather than face the exhausting, financially crippling, and media scrutiny of a trial, especially since prosecutors will seek far higher charges if you choose to fight than if you choose to plead.

    Yes, the book is about federal prosecutorial overreach, but state and county DAs are no slouches when it comes to the plead-guilty-now-or-face-life-in-prison.

    Given the massive negative publicity this guy got from the outset, pleading guilty to a lower offense would've been very strongly encouraged. Even if you could have found an impartial jury, they would've been under social pressure from family, friends, and strangers to find him guilty no matter what.

    Whenever you hear the phrase "plead guilty", remind yourself that does not mean actually guilty.

  32. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jonathan Mason

    You will note that I clicked the "Agree" button for you, but you must also know that OJ Simpson is probably not the best example you could have used. You used him because he is famous.

    Yep, famous, all right. A famous example of jury nullification.

    He received a maximum-type penalty for the latter crime, but it was within sentencing guidelines. Practically everyone of reason understood why and was happy about it.

    Again, you need to find a better example.

    You left out the civil case for the deaths, which he lost to the tune of millions of dollars -- essentially bankrupting him if he wasn't already bankrupt from previous legal fees. (Gotta love the lawyer business! Save your client and then take everything he owns from him.)

    Pick another example. Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Curmudgeon, @Macumazahn, @Anon

    Gotta love the lawyer business! Save your client and then take everything he owns from him.)

    Well to be fair, no one forced Simpson to hire, like, 12 of the highest paid lawyers in America. Or however many it was.

    Simpson was nearly broke because he hired so many high-priced lawyers. He hired so many high-priced lawyers because he was guilty, but didn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. He considered his money for his freedom to be a fair trade.

    Ultimately he served only nine years in prison for the robbery charge. It may not be normal, nowadays, for someone to serve nine years in prison for robbery, even if no guns or kidnapping was involved, but it’s hardly unknown, and was probably quite common 200 years ago, when the Constitution was still fresh.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wilkey

    You make a good point about the cost of Simpson's murder defense, but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.

    That very real chance is also used in lawfare to intimidate and destroy good people -- and to control populations.

    If your pipes break, it's perhaps a few hundred or thousands of dollars of plumbing work -- which, by the way, a damn lawyer couldn't do if his shitty life depended on it.

    If you get sued or charged, it's possibly your life savings or a second mortgage to pay into what we all know is partially a rent-seeking profession.

    A rent-seeking profession.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work:

    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/vultures-eat-carrion-two-ribs-meat-61426765.jpg

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jonathan Mason, @scrivener3, @BBerliner, @Polistra, @MBlanc46

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Wilkey

    Simpson had no problem going into bankruptcy over his legal fees and civil suits because he had established residency in Florida, whose bankruptcy laws allow you to keep retirement pensions and a home.

    Since Simpson had a very sizeable retirement pension pot, he knew that he could go bankrupt and still live very comfortably, as long as he could dodge the death penalty and stay out of prison.

    So he didn't really care how many attorneys were on the payroll, and his attorneys probably didn't care too much about whether they got paid or not, since they were getting massive free publicity for themselves and were becoming world famous.

  33. @Jonathan Mason
    Well look at the OJ Simpson case. He got off on the horrific murder charges and then was sent to prison for 17 years for a relatively trivial charge concerning a dispute over some memorabilia that was made out to be akin to a major bank robbery.

    So you get off on a murder charge at the state level, and then you are judged with violating somebody's civil rights at the federal level. Or with killing somebody while not wearing a mask, or something.

    It is a feature, not a bug, of the US legal system that people are charged with horrific sounding offenses for actions that are actually quite trivial, and that to avoid a trial the offenses are bargained down to something a bit more realistic.

    I don't know whether the supreme Court has ever ruled on whether plea bargaining is constitutional, but you have to love our whacky legal system! It's what makes America great.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Hibernian, @Redman, @William Badwhite, @Deep Anonymous

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept of plea bargaining. It actually “helps” the majority of criminals avoid harsher punishments than they usually deserve under the law.

    The assurance of a fair trial is intended to obviate the prosecution from “overcharging” defendants. It’s only when the media (and then the public) “demands justice” for some specific crime, say child porn or domestic terrorism or hate crimes, that the government is given a free hand to push the envelope. It’s the media and the media alone that dictates how far these governmental bureaucrats can go.

  34. a class of person more popular with the higher courts, such as pornographers or flagburners

    Evidently those two classes are now what the First Amendment was always all about as well.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  35. @Art Deco
    @Hypnotoad666

    I can’t imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    Unless the prosecutor hits the jackpot (see the prosecution of Dharun Ravi in Middlesex County, NJ in 2011 for an example of that), there should be a critical mass on the jury to prevent a conviction. An acquittal would be quite surprising; I cannot imagine it would occur bar in circumstances where the Democratic voters on the jury are all people who do not have much emotional investment in public affairs. What Chauvin did do or did not do is a matter of indifference to gentry liberals and black chauvinists; he's a deplorable who arrested a black man, and that cannot stand.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Paperback Writer

    Agreed. I can’t see a scenario where a jury of Ilhan Omar voters gives him an acquittal even though he is absurdly overcharged. A few the Noor jurors expressed reluctance to convict him afterwords because he was a Somali. The Freddy Gray cops in Baltimore had success with requesting a trial by judge, but I don’t know if that would work for Chauvin in this case.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Barnard

    What are you agreeing on? AD seems to be saying that he'll escape conviction.

    Replies: @Barnard

  36. You can’t even get your Constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy through a plea deal.

    The bigger threat to our Constitutional rights has come from the way in which the Supreme Court has allowed the government”s supposed obligation to end discrimination to override expressed rights like religion, speech, assembly, and property. That obligation now even extends not only to actions which result in actual discrimination, but which simply hurt people’s feelings. There are now a whole lot things which businesses and even individuals cannot do or say, or which you can do or say but can get you sued by private citizens.

    California is apparently considering a law that would ban stores from having separate departments for “boys” and “girls.” Even just a decade or so ago there is almost no one who wouldn’t have considered this a brazen attack on free speech. But it is now probably considered legal by most members of the Democratic Party, and probably by most judges, as well.

    The Left would probably argue that this is simply practical – we have to end discrimination…because reasons, so no Constitutional right should be allowed to get in the way. Yet practical reasons to rein in other Constitutional rights, like say the 14th Amendment’s supposed right to birthright citizenship, even for children of illegal aliens, can only be changed via amendment.

    The Constitution today sometimes seems like little more than a partisan weapon that is wielded mostly by one party to force governments to do what the Left wants them to do, and to keep them from doing what the Left doesn’t want them to do, and brazenly ignored when it’s inconvenient.

    • Replies: @Tono Bungay
    @Wilkey

    Discrimination Is a Human Right -- who'll sell me the T-shirt?

    , @International Jew
    @Wilkey

    Have you been reading Christopher Caldwell's new book? (If not, you should!)

    , @Alice in Wonderland
    @Wilkey


    The bigger threat to our Constitutional rights has come from the way in which the Supreme Court has allowed the government”s supposed obligation to end discrimination to override expressed rights like religion, speech, assembly, and property.
     
    To be fair, it is the woke whites who want to take away your rights like religion, assembly, and speech. The folks in the hood just want your property.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  37. @Percy Gryce
    Steve, I realize there's too much iSteve content to keep up with, but NYT has unmasked a hate hoax:

    https://twitter.com/powellnyt/status/1364676518836903939?s=20

    Replies: @Percy Gryce, @Tono Bungay, @Ripple Earthdevil, @Polistra, @PiltdownMan

    I didn’t read the whole NYT story about the Smith College brouhaha, but I was surprised by what I did read, in that it really did give both sides of the story, something I’d thought the Times was no longer capable of. But it is still astonishing how wacky and ideology-addled these university administrators are!

    • Replies: @Ragno
    @Tono Bungay

    The only, and I mean ONLY, reason the Times coverage appears "fair" is that Smith Collège is already squarely in the eye of another double-standards firestorm (Google 'Jodi Shaw' .....wait, make that DuckDuckGo instead).

    , @additionalMike
    @Tono Bungay

    There is no reason for the NY Times not to be fair...the election is over, they have done their job for the Party, and it is now time to appear fair and balanced, etc., ...until the next election.

  38. @Wilkey

    You can’t even get your Constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy through a plea deal.
     
    The bigger threat to our Constitutional rights has come from the way in which the Supreme Court has allowed the government”s supposed obligation to end discrimination to override expressed rights like religion, speech, assembly, and property. That obligation now even extends not only to actions which result in actual discrimination, but which simply hurt people’s feelings. There are now a whole lot things which businesses and even individuals cannot do or say, or which you can do or say but can get you sued by private citizens.

    California is apparently considering a law that would ban stores from having separate departments for “boys” and “girls.” Even just a decade or so ago there is almost no one who wouldn’t have considered this a brazen attack on free speech. But it is now probably considered legal by most members of the Democratic Party, and probably by most judges, as well.

    The Left would probably argue that this is simply practical - we have to end discrimination...because reasons, so no Constitutional right should be allowed to get in the way. Yet practical reasons to rein in other Constitutional rights, like say the 14th Amendment’s supposed right to birthright citizenship, even for children of illegal aliens, can only be changed via amendment.

    The Constitution today sometimes seems like little more than a partisan weapon that is wielded mostly by one party to force governments to do what the Left wants them to do, and to keep them from doing what the Left doesn’t want them to do, and brazenly ignored when it’s inconvenient.

    Replies: @Tono Bungay, @International Jew, @Alice in Wonderland

    Discrimination Is a Human Right — who’ll sell me the T-shirt?

  39. @Wilkey
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Gotta love the lawyer business! Save your client and then take everything he owns from him.)
     
    Well to be fair, no one forced Simpson to hire, like, 12 of the highest paid lawyers in America. Or however many it was.

    Simpson was nearly broke because he hired so many high-priced lawyers. He hired so many high-priced lawyers because he was guilty, but didn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. He considered his money for his freedom to be a fair trade.

    Ultimately he served only nine years in prison for the robbery charge. It may not be normal, nowadays, for someone to serve nine years in prison for robbery, even if no guns or kidnapping was involved, but it’s hardly unknown, and was probably quite common 200 years ago, when the Constitution was still fresh.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jonathan Mason

    You make a good point about the cost of Simpson’s murder defense, but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.

    That very real chance is also used in lawfare to intimidate and destroy good people — and to control populations.

    If your pipes break, it’s perhaps a few hundred or thousands of dollars of plumbing work — which, by the way, a damn lawyer couldn’t do if his shitty life depended on it.

    If you get sued or charged, it’s possibly your life savings or a second mortgage to pay into what we all know is partially a rent-seeking profession.

    A rent-seeking profession.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work:

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Buzz Mohawk

    To add:

    I've performed real estate and financial transactions in two states, Colorado and Connecticut. In Colorado, I can sell property, manage an estate and other things entirely on my own, without the services of a lawyer.

    In Connecticut, the law requires me to hire a lawyer when I do real estate transactions or manage an estate -- when I do the exact same things I have done in Colorado. Then I get the bill for thousands of dollars, for some slow, unresponsive, dense, thick-headed, Ivy League douchebag who files the exact same kinds of papers I file myself in Colorado.

    Who wrote the laws in Connecticut that require me to do this? Lawyers.

    What happens in Connecticut is rent-seeking. What happens in Colorado is what anybody with a three-digit IQ can do for himself.

    Replies: @Lot, @Abe, @Jim Don Bob

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The real scandal is that lawyers run a cartel to charge the public an hourly rate about 10 times what they are really worth.

    There should be a law that lawyers cannot charge the public more than 50% higher than the average wage for their state unless they have specialist postgraduate qualifications in particular areas of law, in which case a higher charge might be merited.

    Of course if corporations want to put them on the payroll and pay them much more, then that is fine.

    Also lawyers who are offering services to the public should be obliged to provide copies of their resume and references from previous customers to anybody who is interested in hiring them.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    , @scrivener3
    @Buzz Mohawk

    As a former lawyer I feel compelled to come to the defense of my co-lawyers.

    My first premise is Americans are very rich. They may not have any reserve for medical or legal expenses but that is partly on them. They tend to spend anything that comes into their hands: a leased BMW, a large house with subzero and granite, an Iphone with unlimited data plan which must be replaced by a new model every two years.

    Second, part of the expense of the US legal system is an attempt to reach perfect justice without regard to cost. Almost unlimited discovery (something damning might turn up), construing pleadings to be valid if they can be twisted into a claim by any means, even if the judge has to discover the potential claim of the plaintiff.

    Third, most of the people ruined by legal expenses are people put through the meat grinder of criminal prosecution. The government has unlimited resources and no accountability. That is just part of the government maximizing its power against the individual. I never heard of middle or lower class citizens destroyed by a civil suit. Generally such defendants do not have enough assets to justify a large suit against them even if it were successful. A businessman ruined by a law suit was usually at fault. I never heard of someone using civil legal process under a groundless claim to destroy the other party because they spend unlimited amounts on lawyers. Tobacco companies were beat by relatively poor plaintiffs. An individual beat GM on their claim of leather seats when only the facing of the seats was leather.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    , @BBerliner
    @Buzz Mohawk


    but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.
     
    That’s why I’m extremely careful about what I say in person or online about anyone (even anonymously, which I assume, ultimately, is not) and I don’t have a Twitter or Instagram account.

    I also don’t leave online reviews (Yelp, Amazon sellers, etc.) lest I say something perceived as libel even if I thought it was innocuous or even complimentary. I have nothing to gain and potentially and a lot to lose by posting my honest opinions about someone or some group on Twitter or a business review on Yelp.

    You make an off-handed defamatory remark about someone— maybe you thought you read it somewhere about them— and you say it about the wrong person and it will destroy your life.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/movies/james-woods-sues-anonymous-twitter-user-10m-alleging-defamation-n401831

    James Woods Sues Anonymous Twitter User for $10M, Alleging Defamation
    Woods is suing for defamation and invasion of privacy by false light for an "outrageous" tweet claiming he uses cocaine.
     
    The guy finished out the last years of his life from a terminal disease and an ongoing multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit.

    https://www.newsweek.com/james-woods-coke-addict-defamation-lawsuit-538494

    Why Is Actor James Woods Ruthlessly Pursuing a Lawsuit Against a Dead Guy?

    ..."Learn this," [Woods] said in a tweet that has since been deleted. “Libel me, I'll sue you. If you die, I'll follow you to the bowels of Hell. Get it?”

    It is nearly a year later, and Woods can still be said to be in the bowels of hell fishing around for his $10 million...
     
    The guy Woods was suing was a Harvard graduate and I assume reasonably well off. But few if any people can withstand years of civil litigation and a $10 million judgment.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work
     
    Weren’t you the one looking into a Yale School of Mgmt. program? Talk about rent-seeking! Btw, the only reason I remembered you posting this is because you bragged about turning down the advances of a super-fit Japanese-American women which I couldn’t comprehend.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Buzz Mohawk

    , @Polistra
    @Buzz Mohawk


    You make a good point about the cost of Simpson’s murder defense, but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.
     
    You're very right, of course, but the MSM are careful always to frame examples as flukes rather than what they really are: the nature of the beast. If the Duke Lacrosse players' families hadn't been able to afford good lawyers (a couple families took out second mortgages on their houses--they weren't all rich as the MSM portrayed them) and if those lawyers hadn't undertaken intensive investigatory work, those boys would still be rotting in prison today.

    And not to put too fine a point on it, but 'rotting in prison' is very much a euphemism for what would be happening to those boys, on a daily basis. And every self-styled 'liberal' 'progressive' and 'SJW' in the country would still be cheering. BTW: Mike Nifong was sentenced to 24 hours in prison.

    , @MBlanc46
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Buzz, vultures serve a useful function in nature. Comparing them to lawyers is an insult to vultures.

  40. Lileks mentions a lot of anti-citizen barriers going up around gummint buildings in Minneapolis; I wonder if those are somehow connected to the double-jeopardy double-dealings.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Flemur


    Lileks mentions a lot of anti-citizen barriers going up around gummint buildings in Minneapolis; I wonder if those are somehow connected to the double-jeopardy double-dealings.
     
    Does Likeks think Chauvin is innocent?

    Replies: @duncsbaby

  41. “The Constitution today sometimes seems like little more than a partisan weapon that is wielded mostly by one party to force governments to do what the Left wants them to do, and to keep them from doing what the Left doesn’t want them to do, and brazenly ignored when it’s inconvenient.”

    Well said!

  42. @ic1000
    @Jonathan Mason

    > From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    From what you can see. Well put.

    "One would need the history of Floyd’s drug use to put his 11 ng/mL (plus 5.6 ng/mL norfentanyl) in context, beyond saying, 'that would be enough to kill most people, but some very tolerant people could survive it.'"

    But of course that wasn't my point. It was this: In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin's legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers.

    When nearly all errors of commission and omission favor a particular narrative, is error the correct word?

    Replies: @Redman, @Calvin Hobbes, @Corvinus

    When nearly all errors of commission and omission favor a particular narrative, is error the correct word?

    The relationship of the NYT to lying is like the way Marlene Dietrich sang about her relationship to love.

    Das Massenmedien Lied

    [MORE]

    Here’s a little song I wrote.
    You might want to sing it note for note. (See below for the tune.)

    It’s about our mass media, the NYT in particular.
    It’s in German, which is a bit appropriate, since we’re reenacting the pre-Hitler glory days of Antifa in Germany, and since Merrick Garland is regurgitating the mass media Big Lies about Antifa.

    This being Black History Month, I used the MLK method to “write” the song. It’s 99% plagiarized from a Marlene Dietrich song from 1930, with words for “love” replaced by words for “lie”, and first-person singular replaced by first-person plural. And, here it is:

    Das Massenmedien Lied

    Wir sind von Kopf bis Fuß
    Auf lügen eingestellt,
    Denn das ist unsere Welt.
    Und sonst gar nichts.
    Das ist, was sollen wir machen,
    Unsere Natur,
    Wir können lügen nur
    Und sonst gar nichts.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL8A0F0DAA330EC2D6&time_continue=1&v=xntJCG8oL2s&feature=emb_logo

    Computer translation into English (pretty good!):

    We are from head to toe
    Set to lie,
    Because this is our world.
    And nothing else.
    This is what we are to do,
    Our nature,
    We can only lie
    And nothing else.

  43. @Percy Gryce
    @Percy Gryce

    Also there's a new front in WWT:

    https://twitter.com/percy_gryce/status/1364442224776384514?s=20

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Stan Adams, @Reg Cæsar

    When Harry Became Sally!!

    How can I even make good jokes anymore? Nobody will know whether they should get them or not.

    • Agree: fish
  44. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wilkey

    You make a good point about the cost of Simpson's murder defense, but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.

    That very real chance is also used in lawfare to intimidate and destroy good people -- and to control populations.

    If your pipes break, it's perhaps a few hundred or thousands of dollars of plumbing work -- which, by the way, a damn lawyer couldn't do if his shitty life depended on it.

    If you get sued or charged, it's possibly your life savings or a second mortgage to pay into what we all know is partially a rent-seeking profession.

    A rent-seeking profession.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work:

    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/vultures-eat-carrion-two-ribs-meat-61426765.jpg

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jonathan Mason, @scrivener3, @BBerliner, @Polistra, @MBlanc46

    To add:

    I’ve performed real estate and financial transactions in two states, Colorado and Connecticut. In Colorado, I can sell property, manage an estate and other things entirely on my own, without the services of a lawyer.

    In Connecticut, the law requires me to hire a lawyer when I do real estate transactions or manage an estate — when I do the exact same things I have done in Colorado. Then I get the bill for thousands of dollars, for some slow, unresponsive, dense, thick-headed, Ivy League douchebag who files the exact same kinds of papers I file myself in Colorado.

    Who wrote the laws in Connecticut that require me to do this? Lawyers.

    What happens in Connecticut is rent-seeking. What happens in Colorado is what anybody with a three-digit IQ can do for himself.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Buzz Mohawk

    California does not require a lawyer and I have never heard of using one on a typical residential sale, even though many realtors “suggest” hiring one.

    However, sometimes people pay a lawyer $1000-2000 to help with and look over a FSBO transaction to avoid paying a real estate agent 2.5-5%, which on a typical $900,000 house is up to $45,000. (The “traditional” 6% is mostly dead here.)

    My understanding is that in the small number of states that require a lawyer, it is a pretty cheap, well under $1,000 if you shop around.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @Abe
    @Buzz Mohawk


    In Connecticut, the law requires me to hire a lawyer when I do real estate transactions or manage an estate — when I do the exact same things I have done in Colorado. Then I get the bill for thousands of dollars, for some slow, unresponsive, dense, thick-headed, Ivy League douchebag who files the exact same kinds of papers I file myself in Colorado.
     
    I worked with a bargain basement patent attorney once- the sangfroid of Krusty the Klown, professional competence only slightly above Lionel Hutz’s. I wrote nearly the entire patent but I knew that was part of the deal given his low low rates.

    What cheesed me, though, was that the Federal filing fees came in a couple hundred $ less than what I paid, yet he never refunded me despite I’m sure keeping meticulous records. Luckily within the year he dropped dead, so we were cool again.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @Buzz Mohawk

    My mother died in a Canadian province. The law there says that the executor of the estate is entitled to 5% of the value of the estate. We paid a lawyer over $70k to essentially fill out forms saying she's dead, and paying taxes. And if you contest it, the executor uses the estate's money to fight you.

    Many of the legal transactions most people need help with can be handled using state specific forms from companies such as nolo.com. Lawyers aren't doing this work; their secretary is.

  45. @El Dato

    The fresh slate of witnesses subpoenaed to give testimony about Mr. Chauvin is an early sign that the federal investigation into the death of Mr. Floyd, which began last year and then languished, is being reinvigorated under the administration of President Biden.
     
    That's why Biden is so busy. He's been "reinvigorating" things left and right. The war on Afghanistan, the vaccine delivery, the Texan cold spells, Kids in Cages, the bitcoin rally etc. etc.

    You can’t even get your Constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy through a plea deal.
     
    Maybe SCOTUS should get to work? What do they do all day? Tweet? Writing letters justifying why they refuse to do their job of looking into Pennsylvania election cases?

    Not getting out of these Soviet times and rule of non-law without a pillow fight, I say.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @houston 1992

    Not getting out of these Soviet times and rule of non-law without a pillow fight, I say.

    Ok, 1 caveat though: It might cause some problems if My Pillow pillows would be used in such a fight. Mike Lindell is one of the hard selling types:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/larry-johnson-hammer-scorecard-real/

  46. Derek Chauvin is a BLM political prisoner. There is only one way this trial will be allowed to come out by elites: a life sentence for Chauvin in the Supermax for following procedure in arresting a strung out junky felon. I really don’t see how the arrest could have transpired in any other way. George Floyd was a dead man by his own hand. But all black fuckups must be blamed on whites.

  47. Anon[353] • Disclaimer says:

    I think a big issue is in manyof these police cases is the danger of suffocation when you restrain someone, espcially if they are obese or drugged up or otherwise in bad health.

    This is how Eric Garner died. He was alive on the ground, but he was obese, face down and was having an asthma attack.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/opinion/eric-garner-daniel-pantaleo-and-lethal-police-tactics.html

    This is how George Floyd died. The autopsies (two of them) made it clear that the knee was a “Covington kid” visual, but what killed him was the combination of three or four officers restraining his breathing and chest and diaphragm (been there myself, caught in a crowd at a festival, pushed in from all sides, very panic inducing).

    This is how this recent guy in the news, Daniel Prude, died.

    Police don’t have training in getting the guy upright as quickly as possible, although Floyd was resisting and huge and strong and had already escaped, so even four cops were having problems.

    As early as 1995, a Department of Justice bulletin on “positional asphyxia” quoted the New York Police Department’s guidelines on preventing deaths in custody. “As soon as the subject is handcuffed, get him off his stomach. Turn him on his side or place him in a seated position.”

    As Michael Baden, a former chief medical examiner of New York City, told The Times: “Obese people especially, lying face down, prone, are unable to breathe when enough pressure is put on their back. The pressure prevents the diaphragm from going up and down, and he can’t inhale and exhale.

    Floyd was on his side, but crushed against the car, and doped up.

    It’s too bad that the frenzy around these cases obscures this one concrete piece of training that could keep suspects alive. But no, the officer has to be demonized and destroyed.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anon


    As early as 1995, a Department of Justice bulletin on “positional asphyxia” quoted the New York Police Department’s guidelines on preventing deaths in custody. “As soon as the subject is handcuffed, get him off his stomach. Turn him on his side or place him in a seated position.”
     
    More like, “It wasn’t until the mid-1990s...”

    Floyd was on his side, but crushed against the car, and doped up.
     
    Floyd wasn’t crushed against the car.
    , @Art Deco
    @Anon

    but what killed him was the combination of three or four officers restraining his breathing and chest and diaphragm

    What killed him was a lethal dose of fentanyl. His breathing and diaphragm were not restrained for any length of time. His lungs were filling up with fluid.

    Replies: @Jack D

  48. @Jonathan Mason
    Well look at the OJ Simpson case. He got off on the horrific murder charges and then was sent to prison for 17 years for a relatively trivial charge concerning a dispute over some memorabilia that was made out to be akin to a major bank robbery.

    So you get off on a murder charge at the state level, and then you are judged with violating somebody's civil rights at the federal level. Or with killing somebody while not wearing a mask, or something.

    It is a feature, not a bug, of the US legal system that people are charged with horrific sounding offenses for actions that are actually quite trivial, and that to avoid a trial the offenses are bargained down to something a bit more realistic.

    I don't know whether the supreme Court has ever ruled on whether plea bargaining is constitutional, but you have to love our whacky legal system! It's what makes America great.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Hibernian, @Redman, @William Badwhite, @Deep Anonymous

    I don’t know

    This was the only accurate (and relevant) part of your post, as usual.

    • Agree: JMcG, HammerJack
    • LOL: Abe, Gary in Gramercy
    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @William Badwhite

    Have a scintilla of compassion for Mason. He was born that way.

    Besides, he's our Patito in Quito.

  49. If Chauvin isn’t acquitted and set free after a fair trial, all police officers in America should ‘work to rule’ for one hour in protest.

    The following week, there should be rolling work to rule and ‘blue flu’ actions across the country.

    Enough is enough.

  50. We’re frequently reminded by the NYT about the horrible murder of Emmett Till.

    Derick Chauvin is almost certainly a completely innocent man who was just trying to do his job, with zero intent to harm George Floyd. The knee-on-the-neck restraint technique was taught by the Minneapolis PD, and Minneapolis cops were also taught about “excited delirium” in people overdosing on drugs, which Chauvin mentioned while trying to restrain Floyd.

    The left in America (including the NYT) is engaging in the slow-motion murder of Chauvin. The NYT is not a whit better than those guys who killed Emmett Till.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Calvin Hobbes


    The NYT is not a whit better than those guys who killed Emmett Till.
     
    The NYT is millions of times worse, because of their level of influence.

    This is likely to be a hideous miscarriage of justice, but it's almost trivial in comparison with the colossal crimes to which the NYT has been a party over many decades.

    In fact, I generally have trouble identifying a more consistently malevolent player the in public realm. And it's not accidental. None of it is accidental.
  51. Its in Blackstones: ‘‘no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life, more than once for the same offense,’’

    Since 2003 however, when Bliar was PM, there has been no double jeopardy protection in the UK, very handy if the government is determined to get someone.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Gordo


    Since 2003 however, when Bliar was PM, there has been no double jeopardy protection in the UK, very handy if the government is determined to get someone.
     
    Protection from double jeopardy was done away with because the powers that be were determined to have a second shot at the white defendants acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  52. @El Dato

    The fresh slate of witnesses subpoenaed to give testimony about Mr. Chauvin is an early sign that the federal investigation into the death of Mr. Floyd, which began last year and then languished, is being reinvigorated under the administration of President Biden.
     
    That's why Biden is so busy. He's been "reinvigorating" things left and right. The war on Afghanistan, the vaccine delivery, the Texan cold spells, Kids in Cages, the bitcoin rally etc. etc.

    You can’t even get your Constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy through a plea deal.
     
    Maybe SCOTUS should get to work? What do they do all day? Tweet? Writing letters justifying why they refuse to do their job of looking into Pennsylvania election cases?

    Not getting out of these Soviet times and rule of non-law without a pillow fight, I say.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @houston 1992

    For the problem of Double Jeopardy, SCOTUS does not even bother weaseling out of the injustice using the weasel words of Justice O’Connor’s 2003 ruling upholding affirmative action that it would no longer be needed after 2028.

    2)btw how is Chauvin paying his lawyer for the state trial? Do police get offered litigation insurance?

  53. @Percy Gryce
    @Percy Gryce

    Also there's a new front in WWT:

    https://twitter.com/percy_gryce/status/1364442224776384514?s=20

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Stan Adams, @Reg Cæsar

    I’ll have what s/he/it’s having.

    • LOL: Jon
  54. But if there was an acquittal or a mistrial, attention would immediately shift to the federal investigation, and to whether Mr. Chauvin would face trial for violating Mr. Floyd’s civil rights. …

    One of these fuzzy charges that can mean anything. I suspect if there is any chance in hell that falls through then they will launch yet another investigation to see if they can indict him for mail fraud or perjury or some other vague fuckery.

    You can’t even get your Constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy through a plea deal.

    Unfortunately, the constitution doesn’t mean anything anymore.. Fed does what Fed is going to do and SCOTUS is useless.

  55. Double Jeopeardy = Fortiftying the odds of justice

  56. The dual sovereignty doctrine holds that because the federal and state governments are distinct sovereigns, acts constituting offenses against state and federal law are not identical for purposes of double jeopardy. The reasoning for the doctrine is difficult to resist, and the Supreme Court recently rebuked a challenge to it on a 7-2 decision in Gamble v. United States (with Gorsuch and Ginsburg dissenting).

    It’s true that an unfortunate consequence of the doctrine is that it enables federal retrials after justified state acquittals. On the brighter side, it sometimes allows death penalty states to try criminals on capital charges after they’ve gotten life from another sovereign jurisdiction.

    • Replies: @Jon
    @Philo of Alexandria


    On the brighter side, it sometimes allows death penalty states to try criminals on capital charges after they’ve gotten life from another sovereign jurisdiction.
     
    So someone who would have died of old age in prison will die ... of old age ... in the 'death row' part of the prison.

    Dying on Death Row (other than by execution)
    https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dying+on+death+row+(other+than+by+execution).-a0458550933
    , @Abolish_public_education
    @Philo of Alexandria

    What is this Dual Sovereignty baloney? It has to be just another ruse to provide more billable hours to lawyers.

    Let’s see. If Garland can’t convict Chauvin in #2, then the government can always try him at the International Criminal Court.

    After acquittal #3, the government can try him on the Moon for crimes against the solar system.

    Then the MW galaxy court, the intergalactic court, the multiverse court, and beyond.

    It’s just ridiculous.

  57. @Hypnotoad666
    I can't imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    But sadly. the administration of Justice is yet another institution that has been totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists and will stop at nothing to ruin the people they are against.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Art Deco, @Louis Renault, @Lurker, @Paul Jolliffe, @Paul Jolliffe

    You should get on a jury one day then you’ll find out.

  58. @Henry Canaday
    In the sixties, when the Supreme Court was grossly expanding the original meanings of those Bill of Rights amendments that it liked, it wanted to allow Federal jurisdiction in cases of whites accused of murdering blacks in the south who were acquitted by state courts. So it interpreted the double-jeopardy ban in light of an 1180s Statute of Westminster, which allowed the king to prosecute a crime already tried by a local English Court.

    You gotta love lawyers.

    Replies: @Louis Renault

    They’ll just charge him with different crimes that he wasn’t charged with originally. There must be a dozens on the books.

    • Replies: @donut
    @Louis Renault

    How to Become a Federal Criminal: An Illustrated Handbook for the Aspiring Offender Hardcover – June 4, 2019
    by Mike Chase

  59. If Floyd was white he would be another COVID fatality…

    • Agree: Rob McX
  60. Michael Powell’s bio on the NY Times web site:

    Michael Powell is a national reporter covering issues around free speech and expression, and stories capturing intellectual and campus debate. Prior to that, he was the Sports of The Times columnist for six years, wrote the Gotham column for the Metro section, was a national economics writer for Business, and covered the Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani presidential campaigns in 2008. He came to The Times in 2007.

    Mr. Powell was part of the team that won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News for its swift and sweeping coverage of the sex scandal that resulted in the resignation of Governor Eliot Spitzer.

    Before joining The Times, Mr. Powell worked for The Washington Post from 1996 to 2006, where he covered the 2000 presidential campaign and later served as New York bureau chief.

    He began his career in 1984 at the Burlington Free Press, going on to positions with the Bergen Record, New York Newsday and the New York Observer.

    He studied American and African history at SUNY Purchase College, worked as a tenant organizer in East Flatbush and received his master’s degree from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism in 1984.

    His and his wife have two sons. They live in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn.

    His picture is on the site showing he’s white. A very brave man. Wonder how long until he’s cancelled?

    • Replies: @Jon
    @ES

    Skimming the headlines under his bio, he seems to write a lot about dangerous topics, and to take a surprisingly even-handed approach. You are right, his days are numbered.

  61. Anonymous[317] • Disclaimer says:

    OT:

    Two French bulldogs belonging to the pop star known as ‘Lady Gaga’ were stolen in an armed robbery, on the streets of LA, in which the hired dog walker was shot, severally times in the chest, without warning by a group of black men. Dog walker in ‘grave’ condition. News sources generally ignoring the dog walker and gushing over the dogs – how typical LA.

    High price breed dogs – which are readily saleable for much profit – like iPhones have become just another very robbery prone consumer accessory.

    • Replies: @Wade Hampton
    @Anonymous

    One of my favorite books is Jaroslav Hasek's "The Good Soldier Schweik". The novel is set during the Great War. The eponymous Schweik is a sophisticated Praguer who holds the ruling Germans in contempt and feigns idiocy to got out of hard and dangerous military service.

    His job before being drafted is stealing dogs, having them surgically modified where necessary and reselling them as purebreds.

    Of course, the Great War was the occasion of the collapse of a great civilization. I am sure there is no historical parallel to Lady Gaga's dog-thieves at all.

    A brief quote below...


    ‘So they’ve killed Ferdinand,’ said the charwoman to Mr Schweik who, having left the army many years before, when a military medical board had declared him to be chronically feeble-minded, earned a livelihood by the sale of dogs – repulsive mongrel monstrosities for whom he forged pedigrees. Apart from this occupation, he was afflicted with rheumatism, and was just rubbing his knees with embrocation.

    ‘Which Ferdinand, Mrs Müller?’ asked Schweik, continuing to massage his knees. ‘I know two Ferdinands. One of them does jobs for Prusa the chemist, and one day he drank a bottle of hair oil by mistake; and then there’s Ferdinand Kokoska who goes round collecting manure. They wouldn’t be any great loss, either of ‘em.’

    ‘No, it’s the Archduke Ferdinand, the one from Konopiste, you know Mr Schweik, the fat, pious one.’

    ‘Good Lord!’ exclaimed Schweik, ‘that’s a fine thing. And where did this happen?’...”
     
  62. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wilkey

    You make a good point about the cost of Simpson's murder defense, but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.

    That very real chance is also used in lawfare to intimidate and destroy good people -- and to control populations.

    If your pipes break, it's perhaps a few hundred or thousands of dollars of plumbing work -- which, by the way, a damn lawyer couldn't do if his shitty life depended on it.

    If you get sued or charged, it's possibly your life savings or a second mortgage to pay into what we all know is partially a rent-seeking profession.

    A rent-seeking profession.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work:

    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/vultures-eat-carrion-two-ribs-meat-61426765.jpg

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jonathan Mason, @scrivener3, @BBerliner, @Polistra, @MBlanc46

    The real scandal is that lawyers run a cartel to charge the public an hourly rate about 10 times what they are really worth.

    There should be a law that lawyers cannot charge the public more than 50% higher than the average wage for their state unless they have specialist postgraduate qualifications in particular areas of law, in which case a higher charge might be merited.

    Of course if corporations want to put them on the payroll and pay them much more, then that is fine.

    Also lawyers who are offering services to the public should be obliged to provide copies of their resume and references from previous customers to anybody who is interested in hiring them.

    • Agree: Barnard
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jonathan Mason

    The real scandal is that lawyers run a cartel to charge the public an hourly rate about 10 times what they are really worth.

    They don't. There's quite a reserve army of the unemployed in law. The number of law degrees awarded each year exceeds the number of new entrants who can make a living at law by a factor of 1.5x.

    You can argue that the law is written to generate a mess of rent-seeking opportunities for attorneys, and you'd be right. You can argue that legal education is inefficient and padded, and you'd be right. You can argue that the courts are indolent and inefficient, and you'd be right. Keep in mind, though, that the vast bulk of the rents adhere to the 10% or so who are BigLaw partners. Median cash compensation for attorneys (about $122,000) a year is quite ordinary for professional-managerial employees and 5% lower than that for pharmacists.

    , @Calvin Hobbes
    @Jonathan Mason


    The real scandal is that lawyers run a cartel to charge the public an hourly rate about 10 times what they are really worth.
     
    You’ll probably enjoy seeing the scatterplots here:

    https://twitter.com/DavidPittelli1/status/1199391328783732743

    There are a lot of lawyers who ran up ridiculous student debt in law school and who afterwards didn’t make much money. I’ll bet many of their jobs are very unpleasant, too.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jonathan Mason


    There should be a law that lawyers cannot charge the public more than 50% higher than the average wage for their state unless they have specialist postgraduate qualifications in particular areas of law, in which case a higher charge might be merited.
     
    Much of what you wrote is silly, but this particularly so and revealing of your ignorance.

    With few notable exceptions the experts in "particular areas of the law" are practicing attorneys, not professors at Universities or Law Schools. You acquire "specialist postgraduate qualifications" in particular areas of law by practicing in that area of the law for a long time.
  63. @Jonathan Mason
    @ic1000

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide.

    Of course any time somebody's charged with a high profile capital offense, their lawyers are going to throw up all kinds of smokescreens in an attempt to influence the potential jury pool.

    That is what lawyers do. It is just part of the process.

    Replies: @ic1000, @Redman, @Genrick Yagoda, @Art Deco, @Mr. Anon, @Hanoi Paris Hilton

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    The level of fentanyl in his femoral blood was 11.3 nanograms per cc. That’s a middle-of-the-road value for an overdose death. (I did a meatball literature review). He was complaining about his breathing when he was upright and before he was placed on the sidewalk. His trachea and his neck muscles were uninjured. One of the effects of high doses of fentanyl is that your lungs fill with fluid.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Arguably, Chauvin's actions did lead to Floyd's death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant - I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    Putting aside criminal law, from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it - for example they might decide that you are guilty of some crime. Once they make that decision their mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action. From the point that they have made their decision, they are no longer willing or capable of reacting to further inputs. I don't know what it is about police work or they type of people who are attracted to it that makes them reluctant to change their minds, but it's a real thing.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don't know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different and kept it up even after the ambulance had arrived. What may have started out as a reasonable restraint may at some point have become unreasonable when the circumstances changed but Chauvin kept doing the same thing and refused to react to these changes.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Art Deco, @Sean, @Dube, @Curmudgeon, @Mike Tre, @Anonymous

    , @gcochran
    @Art Deco

    I took fentanyl during a medical procedure: kept forgetting to breathe.

  64. The second amendment didn’t even apply to the states until 2010, in the seminal case of McDonald v. Chicago.

    Federalism and the 14th amendment’s selective incorporation doctrine is a strange legal creature.

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
    @petit bourgeois

    The plain language of the 2A applies equally to the States and the Union. And you’re right about the incorporation doctrine.

    Replies: @Jack D

  65. The legalistic reason is the concept of “dual sovereigns”. We have TWO governments and two sets of laws in the US – the state (all local governments derive their authority from the state government) and the federal.

    So (according to the SCOTUS) when you violate both a Federal law and a State law you are not being tried twice for the “same offense” – you are being tried for two separate offenses. Just like, if you kill a DEA agent in Mexico and are tried in Mexico and then picked up by the US, it’s not double jeopardy because the SAME sovereign is not trying you twice.

    Contrary to what Steve says, the test cases have not involved unpopular classes of defendants like cops. In the most recent S. Ct. decision, Terance Gamble was pulled over by a cop for driving while black driving with a damaged headlight. Smelling marijuana, the officer searched Gamble’s car, where he found a loaded 9-mm handgun. Since Gamble had previously been convicted of second-degree robbery, his possession of the handgun violated an Alabama law providing that violent felons could not own guns . Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law. The Court ruled 7-2 that this was OK. Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented. So you can see that the Court did not split on ideological lines nor was this a close decision.

    That being said, this case was decided in 2019. Maybe in the era of Floyd people would look at this case differently. Back in those ancient times (2019) no one had any sympathy for armed black felons.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law.

    IOW, federal prosecutors don't have enough work to do. Cut their budgets and rif some of them.

    , @Hibernian
    @Jack D

    The Neo-Confederate notion of the States as Sovereigns is subscribed to by Leftists, with exceptions such as Justice Ginsburg in this case, when it provides a rationalization for getting away with double jeopardy.

    Replies: @Federalist, @Huisache

    , @Federalist
    @Jack D


    The legalistic reason is the concept of “dual sovereigns”. We have TWO governments and two sets of laws in the US – the state (all local governments derive their authority from the state government) and the federal.

    So (according to the SCOTUS) when you violate both a Federal law and a State law you are not being tried twice for the “same offense” – you are being tried for two separate offenses.
     
    Exactly.

    I don't necessarily agree that this interpretation is proper. But this is unquestionably how the issue has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court.

    The issue isn't incorporation. The prohibition against double jeopardy always applied to the federal govt. Through incorporation, it has been held to apply to the states as well. The reasoning behind the result isn't that the prohibition against double jeopardy doesn't apply in some cases. It's that when a state and the feds both prosecute, it's not double jeopardy.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    , @James B. Shearer
    @Jack D

    "... In the most recent S. Ct. decision, Terance Gamble .."

    The Gamble decision can be found here. You may not agree with the dual sovereignty doctrine but is has a long history, it wasn't recently invented to prosecute cops.

    , @Marty
    @Jack D

    Predictably, Gamble got an outrageous sentence of one (1) year from the racist state of Alabama.

  66. @Jonathan Mason
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The real scandal is that lawyers run a cartel to charge the public an hourly rate about 10 times what they are really worth.

    There should be a law that lawyers cannot charge the public more than 50% higher than the average wage for their state unless they have specialist postgraduate qualifications in particular areas of law, in which case a higher charge might be merited.

    Of course if corporations want to put them on the payroll and pay them much more, then that is fine.

    Also lawyers who are offering services to the public should be obliged to provide copies of their resume and references from previous customers to anybody who is interested in hiring them.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    The real scandal is that lawyers run a cartel to charge the public an hourly rate about 10 times what they are really worth.

    They don’t. There’s quite a reserve army of the unemployed in law. The number of law degrees awarded each year exceeds the number of new entrants who can make a living at law by a factor of 1.5x.

    You can argue that the law is written to generate a mess of rent-seeking opportunities for attorneys, and you’d be right. You can argue that legal education is inefficient and padded, and you’d be right. You can argue that the courts are indolent and inefficient, and you’d be right. Keep in mind, though, that the vast bulk of the rents adhere to the 10% or so who are BigLaw partners. Median cash compensation for attorneys (about $122,000) a year is quite ordinary for professional-managerial employees and 5% lower than that for pharmacists.

    • Agree: vhrm, Ben tillman
  67. @Hibernian
    @Jonathan Mason


    a relatively trivial charge concerning a dispute over some memorabilia that was made out to be akin to a major bank robbery.
     
    Solving that dispute by brandishing a firearm is armed robbery, although not of a bank and therefore not under Federal jurisdiction. To what extent they could legitimately consider the wrongful death civil liability, I don't know. Other aspects of his character, some related to the death of Nicole and Ron and some not, may have played a role in his sentencing. Also, Nevada is not California.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois

    Nevada may not be California, but more than half of Nevada jurisprudence is based upon California law. I’ve seen it with my own two beady eyes. When a state has no established law, it borrows from its neighbor.

    Shit, there wasn’t even a law school in Nevada until 1998. Until 2001, every lawyer from Nevada was educated out of state.

    OJ Simpson deserved some comeuppance in Nevada.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @petit bourgeois

    I took "Nevada is not California" to mean that since they are separate jurisdictions we have yet another reason the situation would not indicate double jeopardy. (Aside from the fact that they are entirely separate crimes under consideration.) Is that not right?

    Replies: @petit bourgeois

  68. @Jack D
    The legalistic reason is the concept of "dual sovereigns". We have TWO governments and two sets of laws in the US - the state (all local governments derive their authority from the state government) and the federal.

    So (according to the SCOTUS) when you violate both a Federal law and a State law you are not being tried twice for the "same offense" - you are being tried for two separate offenses. Just like, if you kill a DEA agent in Mexico and are tried in Mexico and then picked up by the US, it's not double jeopardy because the SAME sovereign is not trying you twice.

    Contrary to what Steve says, the test cases have not involved unpopular classes of defendants like cops. In the most recent S. Ct. decision, Terance Gamble was pulled over by a cop for driving while black driving with a damaged headlight. Smelling marijuana, the officer searched Gamble’s car, where he found a loaded 9-mm handgun. Since Gamble had previously been convicted of second-degree robbery, his possession of the handgun violated an Alabama law providing that violent felons could not own guns . Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law. The Court ruled 7-2 that this was OK. Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented. So you can see that the Court did not split on ideological lines nor was this a close decision.

    That being said, this case was decided in 2019. Maybe in the era of Floyd people would look at this case differently. Back in those ancient times (2019) no one had any sympathy for armed black felons.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Hibernian, @Federalist, @James B. Shearer, @Marty

    Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law.

    IOW, federal prosecutors don’t have enough work to do. Cut their budgets and rif some of them.

  69. @Jonathan Mason
    @ic1000

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide.

    Of course any time somebody's charged with a high profile capital offense, their lawyers are going to throw up all kinds of smokescreens in an attempt to influence the potential jury pool.

    That is what lawyers do. It is just part of the process.

    Replies: @ic1000, @Redman, @Genrick Yagoda, @Art Deco, @Mr. Anon, @Hanoi Paris Hilton

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    He had enough fentanyl in his system to be lethal to some people. What is lethal to him would depend on his particular circumstances. But in principal, it was a lethal dose. He also had THC and meth in his system. And he had heart disease. And Corona virus. Moreover, almost the exact same set of circumstances as happened last May had happened a year before:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/19-days-before-his-death-george-floyd-swallowed-drugs-when-arrested/

    He was arrested, swallowed his stash, and had to be taken to the Hospital for an OD.

    • Thanks: Polistra
    • Replies: @Redman
    @Mr. Anon

    BTW-there was a video on BitChute last year from the camera above the store where Floyd was arrested. A discerning eye (aided by slow motion) shows what very much appears to be a baggie of something in Floyd's hand when he's first placed against the wall.

    There's a significant possibility Floyd tried to swallow his stash here too which could have caused the OD.

    , @ic1000
    @Mr. Anon

    Thanks. I didn't the iSteve post you linked. It's certainly relevant to Chauvin's defense and thus this post.

    State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. Derek Michael Chauvin, Defendant.
    Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646
    Defendant's Notice of Intent to Introduce Additional Evidence
    Aug. 28, 2020


    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE the Defendant, Derek Michael Chauvin, may offer at trial evidence and circumstance of the following:

    [On May 6, 2019,] Mr. George Floyd was engaged in the sale and possession of large quantities of controlled substances. When approached by police he placed drugs in his mouth in an attempt to avoid arrest, and swallowed them. When interacting with police he engaged in diversionary behavior such as crying and acted irrationally. An ambulance was called to transport Mr. Floyd to the hospital.
     
    For the 95% of Americans who trust mainstream sources to deliver the news, "It's what you don't know that you don't know." As if another example is needed.

    Replies: @houston 1992

  70. @Wilkey
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Gotta love the lawyer business! Save your client and then take everything he owns from him.)
     
    Well to be fair, no one forced Simpson to hire, like, 12 of the highest paid lawyers in America. Or however many it was.

    Simpson was nearly broke because he hired so many high-priced lawyers. He hired so many high-priced lawyers because he was guilty, but didn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. He considered his money for his freedom to be a fair trade.

    Ultimately he served only nine years in prison for the robbery charge. It may not be normal, nowadays, for someone to serve nine years in prison for robbery, even if no guns or kidnapping was involved, but it’s hardly unknown, and was probably quite common 200 years ago, when the Constitution was still fresh.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jonathan Mason

    Simpson had no problem going into bankruptcy over his legal fees and civil suits because he had established residency in Florida, whose bankruptcy laws allow you to keep retirement pensions and a home.

    Since Simpson had a very sizeable retirement pension pot, he knew that he could go bankrupt and still live very comfortably, as long as he could dodge the death penalty and stay out of prison.

    So he didn’t really care how many attorneys were on the payroll, and his attorneys probably didn’t care too much about whether they got paid or not, since they were getting massive free publicity for themselves and were becoming world famous.

  71. @Jack D
    The legalistic reason is the concept of "dual sovereigns". We have TWO governments and two sets of laws in the US - the state (all local governments derive their authority from the state government) and the federal.

    So (according to the SCOTUS) when you violate both a Federal law and a State law you are not being tried twice for the "same offense" - you are being tried for two separate offenses. Just like, if you kill a DEA agent in Mexico and are tried in Mexico and then picked up by the US, it's not double jeopardy because the SAME sovereign is not trying you twice.

    Contrary to what Steve says, the test cases have not involved unpopular classes of defendants like cops. In the most recent S. Ct. decision, Terance Gamble was pulled over by a cop for driving while black driving with a damaged headlight. Smelling marijuana, the officer searched Gamble’s car, where he found a loaded 9-mm handgun. Since Gamble had previously been convicted of second-degree robbery, his possession of the handgun violated an Alabama law providing that violent felons could not own guns . Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law. The Court ruled 7-2 that this was OK. Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented. So you can see that the Court did not split on ideological lines nor was this a close decision.

    That being said, this case was decided in 2019. Maybe in the era of Floyd people would look at this case differently. Back in those ancient times (2019) no one had any sympathy for armed black felons.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Hibernian, @Federalist, @James B. Shearer, @Marty

    The Neo-Confederate notion of the States as Sovereigns is subscribed to by Leftists, with exceptions such as Justice Ginsburg in this case, when it provides a rationalization for getting away with double jeopardy.

    • Replies: @Federalist
    @Hibernian


    ...his possession of the handgun violated an Alabama law providing that violent felons could not own guns . Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law. The Court ruled 7-2 that this was OK. Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented.
     
    In the case Jack D cited, Ginsburg dissented from the ruling that the man could be prosecuted both by the State of Alabama and the United States. Presumably, in this case at least, Ginsburg did not subscribe to the notion of states as sovereign in order to thwart the prohibition against double jeopardy.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @Huisache
    @Hibernian

    Neo-confederate? Read the US Constitution sometime.

  72. Poor bastard… Chauvin, that is.

    Guy got caught in a meat grinder.

    • Agree: TWS
    • Replies: @Abe
    @Shouting Thomas


    Poor bastard… Chauvin, that is.

    Guy got caught in a meat grinder.
     
    And even if he avoids jail time you can be certain his professional career, a la Officer Wilson of Le Affaire Ferguson, is over.

    You know, if faker hero [email protected] like, oh, Tom Brady, would throw Chauvin a few $100K (literally pocket change for them; literally excess profits from one good day on the stock market, I can assure you) so that he can have a decent living after his acquittal that would be something . But our fake hero [email protected] would prefer to scratch out their few extra filthy millions from GloboHomo to add to their existing hecto-million stashes instead of doing the right thing. This sort of complete atomization, this complete lack of solidarity is why the right keeps getting steamrolled.

    Overheard at any NFL stadium now: “We ask that you now take a knee and observe a minute of silence (and please remember your seating area is being recorded and the video will be submitted for facial recognition later) for Black Live Matter/Defund the Police. We now ask you to rise as we honor our valiant Capital Hill Police...”
  73. [I]t wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died loaded with a potentially lethal level of fentanyl.

    In abstract it certainly was a lethal dose. especially to someone of his age (drugs are a lot more dangerous when you start taking them as an older person). However, it is questionable whether the lethality of that dose would be specific to someone in the th long standing established drug habit lifestyle of Mr Floyd. Consider :-

    Urban dictionary
    hotshot
    a lethally large amount of heroin, usually given to troublemakers to make them appear to be a random overdose.
    “Yo, Miguel is talking to the feds, he needs a fuckin’ hotshot.

    Now for a little thought experiment; would one try to hotshot Floyd with the amount of fentanyl he actually took, going by the autopsy results of what he had in his system? I don’t think so, you’d need to give him enough to kill a small hippopotamus.

    This is not to deny his unlawful decisions that day to take Fentanyl and resist arrest were probably the lion’s share of why Floyd expired, and the balance was made of the aftermath of a Covid-19 infection on “underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease.” But Floyd is beyond the law.

    Chauvin used the maximal restraint technique on Floyd for several minutes after he was handcuffed, even though all police training and procedures say once cuffed the arrestee must not be kept lying on their chest, ditto the use of the knee.

    But, c’mon, if these transparent obfuscations to get around the double jeopardy ban were being used against a class of person more popular with the higher courts, such as pornographers or flagburners, the Supreme Court would long ago have declared them unconstitutional.

    Old Jeff (Epstein) got a state deal, and then there was a fuss over a Trump appointee that made everyone suddenly interested and angry with Epstein apparent impunity , so the Feds came at him, because he had to be made an example of so the public did not lose confidence in the legal system. If they want to get a guy they get him. Now Chauvin knew he was being filmed and onlookers were threatening him with the footage being used against him. Not only onlookers but even the rookie cops there were expressing strong reservations about what Chauvin was doing. I feel sorry for his colleagues, who he brought down with him, but for Chauvin I have no absolutely no sympathy at all.

    • Replies: @Redman
    @Sean

    Chauvin was following the MPD protocol for dealing with people having delirium episodes. This was readily available online until the MPD took it down after the Floyd situation.

    Replies: @res

  74. @Percy Gryce
    Steve, I realize there's too much iSteve content to keep up with, but NYT has unmasked a hate hoax:

    https://twitter.com/powellnyt/status/1364676518836903939?s=20

    Replies: @Percy Gryce, @Tono Bungay, @Ripple Earthdevil, @Polistra, @PiltdownMan

    Taking a quick look at the comments they are overwhelmingly of the opinion that the black, excuse me, Black, student as well as the college’s reaction was way out of line. I’m also willing to bet that 90+% of the commenters have voted Democrat their entire lives and have zero self-awareness that their own ideology helped bring this about.

  75. @Art Deco
    @Jonathan Mason

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.



    The level of fentanyl in his femoral blood was 11.3 nanograms per cc. That's a middle-of-the-road value for an overdose death. (I did a meatball literature review). He was complaining about his breathing when he was upright and before he was placed on the sidewalk. His trachea and his neck muscles were uninjured. One of the effects of high doses of fentanyl is that your lungs fill with fluid.

    Replies: @Jack D, @gcochran

    Arguably, Chauvin’s actions did lead to Floyd’s death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant – I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    Putting aside criminal law, from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it – for example they might decide that you are guilty of some crime. Once they make that decision their mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action. From the point that they have made their decision, they are no longer willing or capable of reacting to further inputs. I don’t know what it is about police work or they type of people who are attracted to it that makes them reluctant to change their minds, but it’s a real thing.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don’t know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different and kept it up even after the ambulance had arrived. What may have started out as a reasonable restraint may at some point have become unreasonable when the circumstances changed but Chauvin kept doing the same thing and refused to react to these changes.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jack D

    Jack, did you see any more video from this whole incident than just the 8 minutes at the end? I'll give these cops more credit than I usually give to cops. They had been trying to get him into the back of the squad car for a while. He was a big guy, his legs kept obstinately sticking a foot or more out the door, and the cops decided to give up on that effort.

    Something I'm writing about as we speak in a post to be called (in about 30 minutes - gotta get a photo up) "Behave yourself, 2nd-Class Citizens" is that, with all the video out there, most people only see part of it. This one was made into a huge brewhaha, so there were (at least) plenty of other views up and around to see. Oftentimes, though, people don't start filming things, minus the cop bodycams, until some situation is really out of hand, and they want to get hits on youtube*.

    There's more to what happened than the one video seen billions of times. In this case, the rest of it showed that the cops were on Plan B already.

    .

    * Rather than being a decent human being and trying to help if possible. I can't believe the situations I see where I wonder "why don't you put your phone back in your pocket and help out?!"

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki, @JMcG

    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jack D


    Arguably, Chauvin’s actions did lead to Floyd’s death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant – I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.
     
    I think the issues present here are that people whom police are attempting to take into custody commonly make false complaints like these in order to dissuade the officers from arresting them, and that people under the influence of intoxicants to the point of visible disorientation can be a danger to themselves and so restraining them is seen to be the best course. I think we discussed the phenomenon of "excited delirium" here way back at the time of the death of St. George - people under the influence of heavy duty drugs (commonly a mixture thereof) can get to a point of excitement and disorientation that they do crazy things that lead to their maiming or death. So the idea here is to restrain them so they can calm down.

    You'll never convince me that Chauvin conspired with two rookies - one white, one mulatto - and another Hmong officer to kill Floyd for no particular reason. These guys just wound up interacting with the wrong street criminal on the wrong day during the wrong moral panic and their lives will never be the same because of it. It all has the feel of throwing virgins into the volcano, and very few people have the courage to stand up to the mob.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Arguably, Chauvin’s actions did lead to Floyd’s death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out?

    Take off your lawyer hat and try thinking like a human being. (1) he wasn't face down, (2) he was complaining when he was bolt upright too, (3) had he and his chums left the scene 'ere the police arrived, he'd have expired anyway; (4) they'd called the ambulance and were waiting for it when he expired. The ambulance was later than they needed to be because they relied on a GPS which took them to the wrong location.

    Replies: @ganderson, @Lot, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Sean
    @Jack D

    While a lot of what you say is true, Floyd dying changed everything, If someone happens to expire while you are doing something illegal to them, even if it's only technically illegal and quite commonly done without causing problems, you are up the proverbial creek. Chauvin did not deserve to get away with what he did, which included ignoring multiple colleagues.

    Chauvin arrived on the scene after Floyd was handcuffed, and so Floyd was already handcuffed when the bystander phone video starts. What was being done at that point had nothing to do with the authorized transient use of the restraint technique for getting the cuffs on a resisting arrestee. Chauvin initiated and sustained the use of the technique by way of a physical punishment of Floyd for his previous passive aggressive resisting of arrest.

    Though often observed in the breach, police officers are certainly aware they not allowed to use punitive force; what Chauvin did on the phone video was technically an assault from the very begining, and the risks increased with every second until Floyd up and died on Chauvin. So Chauvin was very reckless and he's paying the price of foolhardiness.

    Replies: @Jack D, @vhrm, @Macumazahn, @Art Deco

    , @Dube
    @Jack D

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don’t know when the other cops arrived)....

    Jack, you must be new here.

    , @Curmudgeon
    @Jack D

    This is a political show trial.
    Chauvin was a trainer for the MPD. There has been no statement made by anyone, alleging he failed to follow established MPD policies and procedures. Chauvin removed Floyd from the vehicle because of his difficulty breathing. If a prisoner is handcuffed, placing him on the ground in the position Floyd was in, is as close to "recovery" position as you can get. Recovery position allows saliva and vomit to drain away, preventing aspiration, which being upright or on his back, would not. The knee restraint used is part of the MPD training done by Israelis. It certainly has bad optics, but is not fatal.
    The question I have had from the beginning,is why were 3 cars dispatched to an alleged passing of counterfeit money followed by grab and dash?

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    , @Mike Tre
    @Jack D

    You need to talk to cops who work in the black neighborhoods. Pretty much every negro that gets taken into custody has a story or an excuse or a "you ain't gonna believe this shit" that they throw at the copper in an attempt to not be arrested.

    Floyd's shtick was another boy crying wolf, as far as the arresting officers were concerned.

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out?
     
    Usually when a suspect is able to complain that he is unable to breathe—especially over the course of many minutes—it is good evidence he in fact can breath and is just lying in an attempt to get out of arrest. Breathing is typically necessary for speech. If you are talking, you are breathing.

    While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties
     
    Chauvin didn’t “know” that Floyd was “having breathing difficulties.” Floyd’s ability to talk showed the opposite and that is the exactly the inference Chauvin drew.

    and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.
     
    Chauvin didn’t think Floyd was unconscious. Even if he did, he had no reason to think it was because of the neck restraint, which didn’t impede Floyd’s airway or the flow of blood to his brain.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don’t know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different
     
    The reason was that Floyd’s ability to keep talking over several minutes showed to the officers that Floyd was able to breath. The autopsy corroborates their inference.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  76. Likewise, much of the literal language of the Constitution, such as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, originally didn’t apply to states. Connecticut, for example, had a state religion, Congregationalism, into the 19th Century.

    I made this point before, but my historical knowledge was that Massachusetts and Rhode Island had established Congregationalist Churches. Was unaware that Connecticut had its own too.

    The Constitution is now interpreted to prohibit the government from appearing to endorse religion. It seems to me that endorsement is qualitatively quite different from establishment. I mean I’ve endorsed plenty of restaurants in my time, but have never established one.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    That's Massachusetts and Connecticut, and also, I believe, New Hampshire. Rhode Island never had an Established Church, due to the influence of Roger Williams. It was established by refugees from Puritan Massachusetts.

    Replies: @Foreign Expert

    , @Polistra
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)


    I’ve endorsed plenty of restaurants in my time, but have never established one.
     
    Come on now. That's not what the Establishment Clause is about. It's about the fact that government is not permitted to make any law respecting a religious establishment. It has long (and reasonably) been held to indicate that government may not establish its own religion as well, and the language is clear enough in that regard. But the essence of it is that government can't distinguish among and between religions.

    I'd personally go further and say that this means the government can't grant tax-free status to religious organizations--particularly since in the process it most definitely decides what is a legitimate religion (say, the Catholic Church) and what isn't (Polistrarians for example, which has been held up as nothing more than an attempted tax dodge. Can you imagine?).

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    , @G. Poulin
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    All of the twentieth-century jurisprudence regarding the religion clauses of the First Amendment are bullshit, designed specifically to circumvent the original intent. The original intent was to prohibit the Federal government from interfering with the established religions of the states, and to prohibit it from interfering with religious practice generally. In other words, the intent of the First Amendment was to ENDORSE religious practice as it existed. Twentieth-century judges re-wrote the Constitution to suit themselves. They should all be dug up and publicly burnt.

  77. @Jack D
    The legalistic reason is the concept of "dual sovereigns". We have TWO governments and two sets of laws in the US - the state (all local governments derive their authority from the state government) and the federal.

    So (according to the SCOTUS) when you violate both a Federal law and a State law you are not being tried twice for the "same offense" - you are being tried for two separate offenses. Just like, if you kill a DEA agent in Mexico and are tried in Mexico and then picked up by the US, it's not double jeopardy because the SAME sovereign is not trying you twice.

    Contrary to what Steve says, the test cases have not involved unpopular classes of defendants like cops. In the most recent S. Ct. decision, Terance Gamble was pulled over by a cop for driving while black driving with a damaged headlight. Smelling marijuana, the officer searched Gamble’s car, where he found a loaded 9-mm handgun. Since Gamble had previously been convicted of second-degree robbery, his possession of the handgun violated an Alabama law providing that violent felons could not own guns . Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law. The Court ruled 7-2 that this was OK. Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented. So you can see that the Court did not split on ideological lines nor was this a close decision.

    That being said, this case was decided in 2019. Maybe in the era of Floyd people would look at this case differently. Back in those ancient times (2019) no one had any sympathy for armed black felons.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Hibernian, @Federalist, @James B. Shearer, @Marty

    The legalistic reason is the concept of “dual sovereigns”. We have TWO governments and two sets of laws in the US – the state (all local governments derive their authority from the state government) and the federal.

    So (according to the SCOTUS) when you violate both a Federal law and a State law you are not being tried twice for the “same offense” – you are being tried for two separate offenses.

    Exactly.

    I don’t necessarily agree that this interpretation is proper. But this is unquestionably how the issue has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court.

    The issue isn’t incorporation. The prohibition against double jeopardy always applied to the federal govt. Through incorporation, it has been held to apply to the states as well. The reasoning behind the result isn’t that the prohibition against double jeopardy doesn’t apply in some cases. It’s that when a state and the feds both prosecute, it’s not double jeopardy.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Federalist

    Jack D correctly describes the "separate sovereigns" doctrine, but I think the problem is where as here the second prosecution would be a sham based upon a nebulous "civil rights" offense rather than a bone fide second crime simply arising from the same transaction implicating the Federal Government's interests. This sham style of double "civil rights" prosecution was pioneered in the "Civil Rights" era (go figure) on the justification that Southern juries would not convict members of the Klan etc. regardless of the evidence, so the Federal government felt the need to step in and prosecute in order to break up the Klan.

    "Separate sovereigns" doctrines is often invoked in the context of Organized Crime/RICO prosecutions, because with a few narrow exceptions murder itself is not a Federal crime (although murder for hire is a Federal Crime and predicate offense under RICO). So what will happen is that the U.S. Attorneys Office will take the first shot with a months long RICO prosecution, and then the State will prosecute the actual murder cases later.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  78. @Jonathan Mason
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The real scandal is that lawyers run a cartel to charge the public an hourly rate about 10 times what they are really worth.

    There should be a law that lawyers cannot charge the public more than 50% higher than the average wage for their state unless they have specialist postgraduate qualifications in particular areas of law, in which case a higher charge might be merited.

    Of course if corporations want to put them on the payroll and pay them much more, then that is fine.

    Also lawyers who are offering services to the public should be obliged to provide copies of their resume and references from previous customers to anybody who is interested in hiring them.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    The real scandal is that lawyers run a cartel to charge the public an hourly rate about 10 times what they are really worth.

    You’ll probably enjoy seeing the scatterplots here:

    There are a lot of lawyers who ran up ridiculous student debt in law school and who afterwards didn’t make much money. I’ll bet many of their jobs are very unpleasant, too.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Calvin Hobbes

    Yeah, woe is you if you're the typical grad of Florida Coastal School of Law.

    That graph also makes obvious how much of a difference your law school makes. Notre Dame, for example, might sound very solid to a nice midwesterner like me. But you're likely to end up just as deeply in debt as a Harvard grad and make less than half the starting salary. Georgetown also does much worse than I'd have expected.

    Where's Yale, BTW?

  79. It’s called the “two sovereigns” doctrine, idea being state and federal are 2 different sets of laws. Recall after the Crown Heights riots, Lemerick Nelson was acquitted of murder in NY state court and then convicted in a federal court for civil rights violations. It’s legal bullshit. The founders wanted to make it clear double jeopardy mattered, but in the last 50 years the feds have been locking up politically unpopular defendants who won in state court, and the federal appellate courts have jumped through flaming hoops to allow it.

    Should be fun to see how the US AG and federal courts concoct a theory that Floyd’s death, caused by his ingesting a shitload of fentanyl, was a “civil right violation”. But would bet the courts will allow it.

  80. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Arguably, Chauvin's actions did lead to Floyd's death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant - I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    Putting aside criminal law, from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it - for example they might decide that you are guilty of some crime. Once they make that decision their mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action. From the point that they have made their decision, they are no longer willing or capable of reacting to further inputs. I don't know what it is about police work or they type of people who are attracted to it that makes them reluctant to change their minds, but it's a real thing.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don't know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different and kept it up even after the ambulance had arrived. What may have started out as a reasonable restraint may at some point have become unreasonable when the circumstances changed but Chauvin kept doing the same thing and refused to react to these changes.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Art Deco, @Sean, @Dube, @Curmudgeon, @Mike Tre, @Anonymous

    Jack, did you see any more video from this whole incident than just the 8 minutes at the end? I’ll give these cops more credit than I usually give to cops. They had been trying to get him into the back of the squad car for a while. He was a big guy, his legs kept obstinately sticking a foot or more out the door, and the cops decided to give up on that effort.

    Something I’m writing about as we speak in a post to be called (in about 30 minutes – gotta get a photo up) “Behave yourself, 2nd-Class Citizens” is that, with all the video out there, most people only see part of it. This one was made into a huge brewhaha, so there were (at least) plenty of other views up and around to see. Oftentimes, though, people don’t start filming things, minus the cop bodycams, until some situation is really out of hand, and they want to get hits on youtube*.

    There’s more to what happened than the one video seen billions of times. In this case, the rest of it showed that the cops were on Plan B already.

    .

    * Rather than being a decent human being and trying to help if possible. I can’t believe the situations I see where I wonder “why don’t you put your phone back in your pocket and help out?!”

    • Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki
    @Achmed E. Newman


    brewhaha
     
    If it weren't for reading the lyrics to the 1980s KING CRIMSON song "Elephant Talk", I would undoubtedly also be unaware of how to spell brouhaha .
    , @JMcG
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Many years ago, while on a date, I came upon the scene of a smash and grab robbery in Center City Philadelphia. The young woman whose car had been robbed pointed out the guy who had done it. He was maybe 30 yards away, head down and walking away.
    Without even thinking about it, I ran after the guy, built up a head of steam, and put my shoulder right between his shoulder blades at full speed. He went flying and landed in a heap. Just as I was beginning to wonder what I was supposed to do next, he wordlessly handed the stolen bag over. He got up and walked away. He was well dressed, fit right in on an early spring evening in a nice part of town.
    I gave the bag back to the girl, who found nothing missing.
    The thief was black. Now, imagine if I’d been on a surveillance camera or cell phone camera. Just how miserable would my life have turned out if footage of (a much younger) me knocking down a black guy on a crowded sidewalk and taking a bag from him had been on the local news every half hour with the present Philly D.A. Deciding whether or not to charge me?
    There’s not a hope in hell I’d come to the aid of anyone not in my immediate circle of acquaintances any more. Really, it was foolish to have done it then. I was extremely lucky not to have been shot.

    Replies: @Flip, @Achmed E. Newman

  81. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Arguably, Chauvin's actions did lead to Floyd's death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant - I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    Putting aside criminal law, from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it - for example they might decide that you are guilty of some crime. Once they make that decision their mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action. From the point that they have made their decision, they are no longer willing or capable of reacting to further inputs. I don't know what it is about police work or they type of people who are attracted to it that makes them reluctant to change their minds, but it's a real thing.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don't know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different and kept it up even after the ambulance had arrived. What may have started out as a reasonable restraint may at some point have become unreasonable when the circumstances changed but Chauvin kept doing the same thing and refused to react to these changes.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Art Deco, @Sean, @Dube, @Curmudgeon, @Mike Tre, @Anonymous

    Arguably, Chauvin’s actions did lead to Floyd’s death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant – I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    I think the issues present here are that people whom police are attempting to take into custody commonly make false complaints like these in order to dissuade the officers from arresting them, and that people under the influence of intoxicants to the point of visible disorientation can be a danger to themselves and so restraining them is seen to be the best course. I think we discussed the phenomenon of “excited delirium” here way back at the time of the death of St. George – people under the influence of heavy duty drugs (commonly a mixture thereof) can get to a point of excitement and disorientation that they do crazy things that lead to their maiming or death. So the idea here is to restrain them so they can calm down.

    You’ll never convince me that Chauvin conspired with two rookies – one white, one mulatto – and another Hmong officer to kill Floyd for no particular reason. These guys just wound up interacting with the wrong street criminal on the wrong day during the wrong moral panic and their lives will never be the same because of it. It all has the feel of throwing virgins into the volcano, and very few people have the courage to stand up to the mob.

    • Agree: Redman, Desiderius
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)


    ...people under the influence of intoxicants to the point of visible disorientation can be a danger to themselves and so restraining them is seen to be the best course.
     
    And a danger to others too, of course. What if Floyd had driven off and run someone over? Of course, from a strictly utilitarian point of view, it would be better if the police had let him do so - far more people died as a result of his demise than he himself could have killed.

    Replies: @Jack D

  82. @Hibernian
    @Jack D

    The Neo-Confederate notion of the States as Sovereigns is subscribed to by Leftists, with exceptions such as Justice Ginsburg in this case, when it provides a rationalization for getting away with double jeopardy.

    Replies: @Federalist, @Huisache

    …his possession of the handgun violated an Alabama law providing that violent felons could not own guns . Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law. The Court ruled 7-2 that this was OK. Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented.

    In the case Jack D cited, Ginsburg dissented from the ruling that the man could be prosecuted both by the State of Alabama and the United States. Presumably, in this case at least, Ginsburg did not subscribe to the notion of states as sovereign in order to thwart the prohibition against double jeopardy.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Federalist

    Please re-read my post. I said that Ginsberg was an exception to Leftists rationalizing double jeopardy. Thus her dissent, which you note above, from a decision authorizing double jeopardy by separate sovereigns.

    Replies: @Federalist

  83. @Jonathan Mason
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The real scandal is that lawyers run a cartel to charge the public an hourly rate about 10 times what they are really worth.

    There should be a law that lawyers cannot charge the public more than 50% higher than the average wage for their state unless they have specialist postgraduate qualifications in particular areas of law, in which case a higher charge might be merited.

    Of course if corporations want to put them on the payroll and pay them much more, then that is fine.

    Also lawyers who are offering services to the public should be obliged to provide copies of their resume and references from previous customers to anybody who is interested in hiring them.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Calvin Hobbes, @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    There should be a law that lawyers cannot charge the public more than 50% higher than the average wage for their state unless they have specialist postgraduate qualifications in particular areas of law, in which case a higher charge might be merited.

    Much of what you wrote is silly, but this particularly so and revealing of your ignorance.

    With few notable exceptions the experts in “particular areas of the law” are practicing attorneys, not professors at Universities or Law Schools. You acquire “specialist postgraduate qualifications” in particular areas of law by practicing in that area of the law for a long time.

  84. @Jack D
    The legalistic reason is the concept of "dual sovereigns". We have TWO governments and two sets of laws in the US - the state (all local governments derive their authority from the state government) and the federal.

    So (according to the SCOTUS) when you violate both a Federal law and a State law you are not being tried twice for the "same offense" - you are being tried for two separate offenses. Just like, if you kill a DEA agent in Mexico and are tried in Mexico and then picked up by the US, it's not double jeopardy because the SAME sovereign is not trying you twice.

    Contrary to what Steve says, the test cases have not involved unpopular classes of defendants like cops. In the most recent S. Ct. decision, Terance Gamble was pulled over by a cop for driving while black driving with a damaged headlight. Smelling marijuana, the officer searched Gamble’s car, where he found a loaded 9-mm handgun. Since Gamble had previously been convicted of second-degree robbery, his possession of the handgun violated an Alabama law providing that violent felons could not own guns . Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law. The Court ruled 7-2 that this was OK. Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented. So you can see that the Court did not split on ideological lines nor was this a close decision.

    That being said, this case was decided in 2019. Maybe in the era of Floyd people would look at this case differently. Back in those ancient times (2019) no one had any sympathy for armed black felons.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Hibernian, @Federalist, @James B. Shearer, @Marty

    “… In the most recent S. Ct. decision, Terance Gamble ..”

    The Gamble decision can be found here. You may not agree with the dual sovereignty doctrine but is has a long history, it wasn’t recently invented to prosecute cops.

    • Agree: Federalist
  85. • Replies: @Ahem
    @Reg Cæsar

    Is the second toon funny? If so, why?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  86. @William Badwhite
    @Jonathan Mason


    I don’t know
     
    This was the only accurate (and relevant) part of your post, as usual.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    Have a scintilla of compassion for Mason. He was born that way.

    Besides, he’s our Patito in Quito.

  87. Might be a good idea to allow a jury empaneled for a criminal trial to switch hats and become a Grand Jury able to charge prosecutors for bringing a meritless or malicious case against a defendant.

  88. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jack D

    Jack, did you see any more video from this whole incident than just the 8 minutes at the end? I'll give these cops more credit than I usually give to cops. They had been trying to get him into the back of the squad car for a while. He was a big guy, his legs kept obstinately sticking a foot or more out the door, and the cops decided to give up on that effort.

    Something I'm writing about as we speak in a post to be called (in about 30 minutes - gotta get a photo up) "Behave yourself, 2nd-Class Citizens" is that, with all the video out there, most people only see part of it. This one was made into a huge brewhaha, so there were (at least) plenty of other views up and around to see. Oftentimes, though, people don't start filming things, minus the cop bodycams, until some situation is really out of hand, and they want to get hits on youtube*.

    There's more to what happened than the one video seen billions of times. In this case, the rest of it showed that the cops were on Plan B already.

    .

    * Rather than being a decent human being and trying to help if possible. I can't believe the situations I see where I wonder "why don't you put your phone back in your pocket and help out?!"

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki, @JMcG

    brewhaha

    If it weren’t for reading the lyrics to the 1980s KING CRIMSON song “Elephant Talk”, I would undoubtedly also be unaware of how to spell brouhaha .

  89. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Arguably, Chauvin's actions did lead to Floyd's death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant - I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    Putting aside criminal law, from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it - for example they might decide that you are guilty of some crime. Once they make that decision their mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action. From the point that they have made their decision, they are no longer willing or capable of reacting to further inputs. I don't know what it is about police work or they type of people who are attracted to it that makes them reluctant to change their minds, but it's a real thing.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don't know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different and kept it up even after the ambulance had arrived. What may have started out as a reasonable restraint may at some point have become unreasonable when the circumstances changed but Chauvin kept doing the same thing and refused to react to these changes.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Art Deco, @Sean, @Dube, @Curmudgeon, @Mike Tre, @Anonymous

    Arguably, Chauvin’s actions did lead to Floyd’s death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out?

    Take off your lawyer hat and try thinking like a human being. (1) he wasn’t face down, (2) he was complaining when he was bolt upright too, (3) had he and his chums left the scene ‘ere the police arrived, he’d have expired anyway; (4) they’d called the ambulance and were waiting for it when he expired. The ambulance was later than they needed to be because they relied on a GPS which took them to the wrong location.

    • Replies: @ganderson
    @Art Deco

    Mr. Deco- agreed, and Chauvin is screwed.

    The ambulance getting lost deal puzzles me- 38th and Chicago is not in a tucked-away obscure corner of the city; it's the intersection of two major South Minneapolis thoroughfares.

    , @Lot
    @Art Deco

    “ Take off your lawyer hat ”

    Thank you.

    Jack D: this isn’t a time to carefully analyze what happened, but rather to show unquestioning solidarity with a law enforcement officer dealing with a gigantic home invading drug addict in the process of ODing, but charged with premeditated murder because of anti-white animus.

    People like Derek and Kyle R. need intelligent and articulate advocates who take their side as aggressively as their persecutors.

    Replies: @Polistra, @MBlanc46, @Anonymous

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Art Deco


    ‘ere
     
    Ere is a whole word, not a contraction.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ere

    The fact-checker fact-checked!
  90. @Icy Blast
    @SFG

    Bush Senior ordered the officers who arrested Rodney King to be tried a second time. They were, he got verdict he wanted, and Democrats, declared as well as those (like Bush Senior himself) in disguise, danced in the streets. I saw Daryl Gates at a local grocery store once, I asked him about this, and he just ignored me.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer

    I saw Daryl Gates at a local grocery store once, I asked him about this, and he just ignored me.

    I met a previous mayor of Minneapolis in a grocery store (in St Paul– scandal!), Sharon Sayles Belton, and a second time at work. She was quite friendly and genuine in an Aunt Jemima way. One can imagine how she would have been with someone of consequence, say, Bill Clinton when they passed me on a downtown street in a limo. (“Sharon, keep your head visible at all times!”)

    Where does Mayor Frey get his groceries? Certainly not Cub Foods, let alone CUP Foods. His wife or servant or security detail probably does it for him, especially now. Hell, it’s probably all delivered.

  91. @Shouting Thomas
    Poor bastard... Chauvin, that is.

    Guy got caught in a meat grinder.

    Replies: @Abe

    Poor bastard… Chauvin, that is.

    Guy got caught in a meat grinder.

    And even if he avoids jail time you can be certain his professional career, a la Officer Wilson of Le Affaire Ferguson, is over.

    You know, if faker hero [email protected] like, oh, Tom Brady, would throw Chauvin a few $100K (literally pocket change for them; literally excess profits from one good day on the stock market, I can assure you) so that he can have a decent living after his acquittal that would be something . But our fake hero [email protected] would prefer to scratch out their few extra filthy millions from GloboHomo to add to their existing hecto-million stashes instead of doing the right thing. This sort of complete atomization, this complete lack of solidarity is why the right keeps getting steamrolled.

    Overheard at any NFL stadium now: “We ask that you now take a knee and observe a minute of silence (and please remember your seating area is being recorded and the video will be submitted for facial recognition later) for Black Live Matter/Defund the Police. We now ask you to rise as we honor our valiant Capital Hill Police…”

  92. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Buzz Mohawk

    To add:

    I've performed real estate and financial transactions in two states, Colorado and Connecticut. In Colorado, I can sell property, manage an estate and other things entirely on my own, without the services of a lawyer.

    In Connecticut, the law requires me to hire a lawyer when I do real estate transactions or manage an estate -- when I do the exact same things I have done in Colorado. Then I get the bill for thousands of dollars, for some slow, unresponsive, dense, thick-headed, Ivy League douchebag who files the exact same kinds of papers I file myself in Colorado.

    Who wrote the laws in Connecticut that require me to do this? Lawyers.

    What happens in Connecticut is rent-seeking. What happens in Colorado is what anybody with a three-digit IQ can do for himself.

    Replies: @Lot, @Abe, @Jim Don Bob

    California does not require a lawyer and I have never heard of using one on a typical residential sale, even though many realtors “suggest” hiring one.

    However, sometimes people pay a lawyer $1000-2000 to help with and look over a FSBO transaction to avoid paying a real estate agent 2.5-5%, which on a typical $900,000 house is up to $45,000. (The “traditional” 6% is mostly dead here.)

    My understanding is that in the small number of states that require a lawyer, it is a pretty cheap, well under $1,000 if you shop around.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Lot

    For a condo, you need one.

  93. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wilkey

    You make a good point about the cost of Simpson's murder defense, but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.

    That very real chance is also used in lawfare to intimidate and destroy good people -- and to control populations.

    If your pipes break, it's perhaps a few hundred or thousands of dollars of plumbing work -- which, by the way, a damn lawyer couldn't do if his shitty life depended on it.

    If you get sued or charged, it's possibly your life savings or a second mortgage to pay into what we all know is partially a rent-seeking profession.

    A rent-seeking profession.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work:

    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/vultures-eat-carrion-two-ribs-meat-61426765.jpg

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jonathan Mason, @scrivener3, @BBerliner, @Polistra, @MBlanc46

    As a former lawyer I feel compelled to come to the defense of my co-lawyers.

    My first premise is Americans are very rich. They may not have any reserve for medical or legal expenses but that is partly on them. They tend to spend anything that comes into their hands: a leased BMW, a large house with subzero and granite, an Iphone with unlimited data plan which must be replaced by a new model every two years.

    Second, part of the expense of the US legal system is an attempt to reach perfect justice without regard to cost. Almost unlimited discovery (something damning might turn up), construing pleadings to be valid if they can be twisted into a claim by any means, even if the judge has to discover the potential claim of the plaintiff.

    Third, most of the people ruined by legal expenses are people put through the meat grinder of criminal prosecution. The government has unlimited resources and no accountability. That is just part of the government maximizing its power against the individual. I never heard of middle or lower class citizens destroyed by a civil suit. Generally such defendants do not have enough assets to justify a large suit against them even if it were successful. A businessman ruined by a law suit was usually at fault. I never heard of someone using civil legal process under a groundless claim to destroy the other party because they spend unlimited amounts on lawyers. Tobacco companies were beat by relatively poor plaintiffs. An individual beat GM on their claim of leather seats when only the facing of the seats was leather.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @scrivener3

    Remove the barrier to entry. Each state create its requirements for bar, not to include a law degree or other expensive right to passage. Let bright legal minds work around the swamp.

  94. @Wilkey

    You can’t even get your Constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy through a plea deal.
     
    The bigger threat to our Constitutional rights has come from the way in which the Supreme Court has allowed the government”s supposed obligation to end discrimination to override expressed rights like religion, speech, assembly, and property. That obligation now even extends not only to actions which result in actual discrimination, but which simply hurt people’s feelings. There are now a whole lot things which businesses and even individuals cannot do or say, or which you can do or say but can get you sued by private citizens.

    California is apparently considering a law that would ban stores from having separate departments for “boys” and “girls.” Even just a decade or so ago there is almost no one who wouldn’t have considered this a brazen attack on free speech. But it is now probably considered legal by most members of the Democratic Party, and probably by most judges, as well.

    The Left would probably argue that this is simply practical - we have to end discrimination...because reasons, so no Constitutional right should be allowed to get in the way. Yet practical reasons to rein in other Constitutional rights, like say the 14th Amendment’s supposed right to birthright citizenship, even for children of illegal aliens, can only be changed via amendment.

    The Constitution today sometimes seems like little more than a partisan weapon that is wielded mostly by one party to force governments to do what the Left wants them to do, and to keep them from doing what the Left doesn’t want them to do, and brazenly ignored when it’s inconvenient.

    Replies: @Tono Bungay, @International Jew, @Alice in Wonderland

    Have you been reading Christopher Caldwell’s new book? (If not, you should!)

    • Agree: Dr. X, Jim Don Bob
  95. This is not double jeopardy, any more than the Browns suing OJ for “violation of civil rights.”

    But cheer up Steve-O; you and the hoi polloi will soon have a news network all your own...

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/qatars-al-jazeera-launches-right-wing-news-platform-americans-who-feel-left-out-msm

    • Replies: @Abe
    @Truth


    This is not double jeopardy, any more than the Browns suing OJ for “violation of civil rights.”
     
    You know, I would bet more than 50% of the people on here were against that too (to take one random example- me!).

    Replies: @Truth

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Truth


    This is not double jeopardy, any more than the Browns suing OJ for “violation of civil rights.”
     
    The Browns sued OJ themselves, in civil court, for wrongful death, not “violation of civil rights”. That isn't double jeopardy; they didn't bring the criminal prosecution against him. They aren't The State.

    You might have known all that if you weren't a moron.
  96. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jack D

    Jack, did you see any more video from this whole incident than just the 8 minutes at the end? I'll give these cops more credit than I usually give to cops. They had been trying to get him into the back of the squad car for a while. He was a big guy, his legs kept obstinately sticking a foot or more out the door, and the cops decided to give up on that effort.

    Something I'm writing about as we speak in a post to be called (in about 30 minutes - gotta get a photo up) "Behave yourself, 2nd-Class Citizens" is that, with all the video out there, most people only see part of it. This one was made into a huge brewhaha, so there were (at least) plenty of other views up and around to see. Oftentimes, though, people don't start filming things, minus the cop bodycams, until some situation is really out of hand, and they want to get hits on youtube*.

    There's more to what happened than the one video seen billions of times. In this case, the rest of it showed that the cops were on Plan B already.

    .

    * Rather than being a decent human being and trying to help if possible. I can't believe the situations I see where I wonder "why don't you put your phone back in your pocket and help out?!"

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki, @JMcG

    Many years ago, while on a date, I came upon the scene of a smash and grab robbery in Center City Philadelphia. The young woman whose car had been robbed pointed out the guy who had done it. He was maybe 30 yards away, head down and walking away.
    Without even thinking about it, I ran after the guy, built up a head of steam, and put my shoulder right between his shoulder blades at full speed. He went flying and landed in a heap. Just as I was beginning to wonder what I was supposed to do next, he wordlessly handed the stolen bag over. He got up and walked away. He was well dressed, fit right in on an early spring evening in a nice part of town.
    I gave the bag back to the girl, who found nothing missing.
    The thief was black. Now, imagine if I’d been on a surveillance camera or cell phone camera. Just how miserable would my life have turned out if footage of (a much younger) me knocking down a black guy on a crowded sidewalk and taking a bag from him had been on the local news every half hour with the present Philly D.A. Deciding whether or not to charge me?
    There’s not a hope in hell I’d come to the aid of anyone not in my immediate circle of acquaintances any more. Really, it was foolish to have done it then. I was extremely lucky not to have been shot.

    • Replies: @Flip
    @JMcG

    I know of a middle aged white guy who chased a black kid who stole the tips jar from a Starbucks and ended up getting run over by the kid and killed.

    Replies: @JMcG

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @JMcG

    In the spur of the moment you did the right thing, Mr. McG.

    That said, I also agree with your hindsight, especially in this day of ubiquitous video footage. White men are 2nd-Class citizens in this country now.

  97. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Buzz Mohawk

    To add:

    I've performed real estate and financial transactions in two states, Colorado and Connecticut. In Colorado, I can sell property, manage an estate and other things entirely on my own, without the services of a lawyer.

    In Connecticut, the law requires me to hire a lawyer when I do real estate transactions or manage an estate -- when I do the exact same things I have done in Colorado. Then I get the bill for thousands of dollars, for some slow, unresponsive, dense, thick-headed, Ivy League douchebag who files the exact same kinds of papers I file myself in Colorado.

    Who wrote the laws in Connecticut that require me to do this? Lawyers.

    What happens in Connecticut is rent-seeking. What happens in Colorado is what anybody with a three-digit IQ can do for himself.

    Replies: @Lot, @Abe, @Jim Don Bob

    In Connecticut, the law requires me to hire a lawyer when I do real estate transactions or manage an estate — when I do the exact same things I have done in Colorado. Then I get the bill for thousands of dollars, for some slow, unresponsive, dense, thick-headed, Ivy League douchebag who files the exact same kinds of papers I file myself in Colorado.

    I worked with a bargain basement patent attorney once- the sangfroid of Krusty the Klown, professional competence only slightly above Lionel Hutz’s. I wrote nearly the entire patent but I knew that was part of the deal given his low low rates.

    What cheesed me, though, was that the Federal filing fees came in a couple hundred $ less than what I paid, yet he never refunded me despite I’m sure keeping meticulous records. Luckily within the year he dropped dead, so we were cool again.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Abe

    A couple hundred. You're doing well, my friend.

  98. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jonathan Mason

    You will note that I clicked the "Agree" button for you, but you must also know that OJ Simpson is probably not the best example you could have used. You used him because he is famous.

    Yep, famous, all right. A famous example of jury nullification.

    He received a maximum-type penalty for the latter crime, but it was within sentencing guidelines. Practically everyone of reason understood why and was happy about it.

    Again, you need to find a better example.

    You left out the civil case for the deaths, which he lost to the tune of millions of dollars -- essentially bankrupting him if he wasn't already bankrupt from previous legal fees. (Gotta love the lawyer business! Save your client and then take everything he owns from him.)

    Pick another example. Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Curmudgeon, @Macumazahn, @Anon

    I am not saying Simpson is innocent, but a retired judge told me that what most people don’t recognize about Simpson’s trial, was the vast amount of evidence, ruled inadmissible, that the public heard, but the jury didn’t. He also said a huge flaw in the prosecution, from his perspective,was that the police saw Simpson as the one and only suspect. They essentially ignored all other possibilities, including the drug debt allegedly owed by Goldman.
    One of the secretaries in our office re-typed court transcripts for a local “wrongfully convicted” group. She was familiar with court jargon. She paid a great deal of attention to Simpson’s case (I couldn’t have cared less) and was convinced that there was reasonable doubt, given the very narrow window of opportunity. Reasonable doubt is another way of saying not proven, which does not mean not guilty.
    I came to the conclusion that the prosecution simply screwed up. If you can’t conduct a proper chain of possession for blood evidence (LAPD) then your entire investigation becomes suspect. The “revenge” on Simpson was for exposing the clown show that passed as an investigation and prosecution, not for the verdict.
    Was he guilty? Probably, but that is only a guess. On the other hand, I have no sympathy for mud sharks, particularly when they jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
    As for his “armed robbery” If I remember correctly, the articles he went to retrieve were actually his, not the people who had them in their possession.
    For what it is worth, IMO Chauvin doesn’t have a chance. It is impossible for him to have an impartial jury in Mini-no-place. It really wouldn’t matter where the trial would be held. The well has been poisoned. If he chose to waive a jury trial, no judge would follow the law at the risk of losing office. He’s doomed, no matter what the evidence is.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    @Curmudgeon

    The jury heard a "vast amount of evidence" anyway. They ignored it. There was NO evidence of a "drug debt allegedly owed by Goldman." What "other possibilities" were there? Why on earth would they not have charged Simpson?

    Oh, the prosecution certainly did "screw up." They should have cut Mark Fuhrman out of the case, which the victims' attorneys did in the wrongful death civil suit. Marcia Clark admitted in her book she should have "taken a writ" to the Cal Supreme Court when Lance Ito ruled the defense could claim (without providing evidence he did so) Fuhrman planted the glove. It was the only mistake Clark admitted.

    Yes, Nicole Brown was not a sympathetic victim, despite her horrible death. For black women on the jury, she was in life everything they hate. White men and women didn't like her either.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Curmudgeon


    On the other hand, I have no sympathy for mud sharks...
     

    Dictionary.com
    has no sympathy for those who use that term:

    WHAT DOES MUD SHARK MEAN?

    Warning: This article features information about a racial slur that is highly offensive and that should not be used ... ever.


    https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/mud-shark/
     

    That rabbit hole led to the "Alabama Hot Pocket". Just what did the poor Yellowhammer State do to merit the indignity of that title? Or is Mobile Bay really that polluted?

    Assuming this is even real. Notably, it's the flip side of "Fake News".

  99. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Arguably, Chauvin's actions did lead to Floyd's death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant - I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    Putting aside criminal law, from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it - for example they might decide that you are guilty of some crime. Once they make that decision their mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action. From the point that they have made their decision, they are no longer willing or capable of reacting to further inputs. I don't know what it is about police work or they type of people who are attracted to it that makes them reluctant to change their minds, but it's a real thing.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don't know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different and kept it up even after the ambulance had arrived. What may have started out as a reasonable restraint may at some point have become unreasonable when the circumstances changed but Chauvin kept doing the same thing and refused to react to these changes.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Art Deco, @Sean, @Dube, @Curmudgeon, @Mike Tre, @Anonymous

    While a lot of what you say is true, Floyd dying changed everything, If someone happens to expire while you are doing something illegal to them, even if it’s only technically illegal and quite commonly done without causing problems, you are up the proverbial creek. Chauvin did not deserve to get away with what he did, which included ignoring multiple colleagues.

    Chauvin arrived on the scene after Floyd was handcuffed, and so Floyd was already handcuffed when the bystander phone video starts. What was being done at that point had nothing to do with the authorized transient use of the restraint technique for getting the cuffs on a resisting arrestee. Chauvin initiated and sustained the use of the technique by way of a physical punishment of Floyd for his previous passive aggressive resisting of arrest.

    Though often observed in the breach, police officers are certainly aware they not allowed to use punitive force; what Chauvin did on the phone video was technically an assault from the very begining, and the risks increased with every second until Floyd up and died on Chauvin. So Chauvin was very reckless and he’s paying the price of foolhardiness.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Sean

    I wasn't there and I haven't seen all the video but there seems to be some difference concerning the facts - either Chauvin was restraining Floyd merely to punish him for having resisted being put in the cop car or he was being restrained for Floyd's own safety and that of others. Presumably this will be clarified somewhat at trial.

    Motive is not an element of most crimes anyway and unless Chauvin confesses or lets this slip , we are never going to know that Chauvin restrained Floyd for the purpose of punishing him. Perhaps it can be inferred from Chauvin's behavior but I don't see how the prosecutors could show beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was intentionally trying to punish Floyd. Based upon what we know, I think that is a bit of a stretch. While Chauvin probably does not dare take the stand himself, he will present experts at trial who will say that this was an appropriate technique under the circumstances. If Chauvin really wanted to punish Floyd, there are other things that he could have done that would have been more painful and less time consuming than kneeling on him for over 8 minutes. Very often when the cops are trying to put an uncooperative person in the back of their car, that person "accidentally" bumps their head on the roof of the car or he "accidentally" falls flat on his face. Etc.

    I agree with you that generally speaking, someone dying changes the legal posture a LOT. If you are drunk and have a fender bender it's one thing. If the person in the other car is not belted and goes flying out the window and dies, it's much more serious even if it's the same exact fender bender.

    , @vhrm
    @Sean


    Chauvin arrived on the scene after Floyd was handcuffed, and so Floyd was already handcuffed when the bystander phone video starts.
     

    what Chauvin did on the phone video
     
    The bodycam videos / transcripts provide a lot of context and the story of significantly different. As was already mentioned up-thread Floyd was complaining about not being able to breathe (and having some sort of anxiety /panic attack ) for several minutes before Chauvin got on the scene. It was bad enough that Floyd himself and to be laid down on the ground.

    Also, "If someone happens to expire while you are doing something illegal to them, even if it’s only technically illegal" is true, but Chauvin wasn't doing anything even technically illegal that I'm aware of. Neck compression was an allowed technique at the time in his department.

    And what in your eyes makes this "technically an assault"? Whether it's an assault is dependent on intent and there is no evidence that was the intent.

    Massage, CPR or surgery also aren't generally assault (or battery) technically or otherwise even though those same activities CAN be, based on context.
    , @Macumazahn
    @Sean

    Am I the only one who thinks that Chauvin might have relented if he were not being subjected to endless ook-ook invective from the bystanders? If Officer Chauvin was indeed thinking "F-you," his thoughtcrime was directed at the screaming piece-of-crap videographers, not at Saint George. Chauvin thought it was just another day of dealing with the worthless two-legged feces of the ghetto streets. Little did he know that America now canonizes violent junkie retard felons - if they're negroes.
    Chauvin should get a commendation, not a trial.

    Replies: @Sean

    , @Art Deco
    @Sean

    Chauvin arrived on the scene after Floyd was handcuffed, and so Floyd was already handcuffed when the bystander phone video starts. What was being done at that point had nothing to do with the authorized transient use of the restraint technique for getting the cuffs on a resisting arrestee.

    He put Floyd on the ground because Floyd was contumacious in the vehicle. And, again, Floyd had so much fentanyl in his system he was a goner no batter what Chauvin had done.

  100. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Arguably, Chauvin's actions did lead to Floyd's death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant - I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    Putting aside criminal law, from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it - for example they might decide that you are guilty of some crime. Once they make that decision their mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action. From the point that they have made their decision, they are no longer willing or capable of reacting to further inputs. I don't know what it is about police work or they type of people who are attracted to it that makes them reluctant to change their minds, but it's a real thing.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don't know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different and kept it up even after the ambulance had arrived. What may have started out as a reasonable restraint may at some point have become unreasonable when the circumstances changed but Chauvin kept doing the same thing and refused to react to these changes.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Art Deco, @Sean, @Dube, @Curmudgeon, @Mike Tre, @Anonymous

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don’t know when the other cops arrived)….

    Jack, you must be new here.

  101. @Truth
    This is not double jeopardy, any more than the Browns suing OJ for "violation of civil rights."

    But cheer up Steve-O; you and the hoi polloi will soon have a news network all your own...

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/qatars-al-jazeera-launches-right-wing-news-platform-americans-who-feel-left-out-msm

    Replies: @Abe, @Mr. Anon

    This is not double jeopardy, any more than the Browns suing OJ for “violation of civil rights.”

    You know, I would bet more than 50% of the people on here were against that too (to take one random example- me!).

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Abe

    Honest Abe, believe me on this one: You are incorrect here.

    While it would make sense on a board of erstwhile "conservatives," there are two critical facts to consider.

    OJ is Black.

    Nicole was White.

    The former was charged with having done violence to the latter, so If your cohorts could have thrown out the constitution and charged OJ under some 4,000 Cananite statute found buried under an olive tree in Iran, from the court of Ba'al, to get a conviction, it would have been done.

  102. Anonymous[194] • Disclaimer says:

    Meanwhile, the de facto Biden Child Rape Machine is certainly gaining steam, since lack of legal discretion emboldens illegals, who might otherwise be detained or deported, to answer to their more basic needs.

    But to democrats, child rape is just the cost of doing business. I guess the continually unanswered question for democrats might be, “how much child rape is acceptable, related to illegal alien management?” It’s something everyone should ask their democrat friends. And don’t stop until you get an answer…

    https://www.illegalaliencrimereport.com/post/illegal-alien-charged-with-raping-11-year-old-girl-in-north-carolina

  103. @Mr. Anon
    @Jonathan Mason


    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.
     
    He had enough fentanyl in his system to be lethal to some people. What is lethal to him would depend on his particular circumstances. But in principal, it was a lethal dose. He also had THC and meth in his system. And he had heart disease. And Corona virus. Moreover, almost the exact same set of circumstances as happened last May had happened a year before:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/19-days-before-his-death-george-floyd-swallowed-drugs-when-arrested/

    He was arrested, swallowed his stash, and had to be taken to the Hospital for an OD.

    Replies: @Redman, @ic1000

    BTW-there was a video on BitChute last year from the camera above the store where Floyd was arrested. A discerning eye (aided by slow motion) shows what very much appears to be a baggie of something in Floyd’s hand when he’s first placed against the wall.

    There’s a significant possibility Floyd tried to swallow his stash here too which could have caused the OD.

  104. @Sean

    [I]t wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died loaded with a potentially lethal level of fentanyl.
     
    In abstract it certainly was a lethal dose. especially to someone of his age (drugs are a lot more dangerous when you start taking them as an older person). However, it is questionable whether the lethality of that dose would be specific to someone in the th long standing established drug habit lifestyle of Mr Floyd. Consider :-

    Urban dictionary
    hotshot
    a lethally large amount of heroin, usually given to troublemakers to make them appear to be a random overdose.
    "Yo, Miguel is talking to the feds, he needs a fuckin' hotshot.
     
    Now for a little thought experiment; would one try to hotshot Floyd with the amount of fentanyl he actually took, going by the autopsy results of what he had in his system? I don't think so, you'd need to give him enough to kill a small hippopotamus.

    This is not to deny his unlawful decisions that day to take Fentanyl and resist arrest were probably the lion's share of why Floyd expired, and the balance was made of the aftermath of a Covid-19 infection on "underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease." But Floyd is beyond the law.

    Chauvin used the maximal restraint technique on Floyd for several minutes after he was handcuffed, even though all police training and procedures say once cuffed the arrestee must not be kept lying on their chest, ditto the use of the knee.


    But, c’mon, if these transparent obfuscations to get around the double jeopardy ban were being used against a class of person more popular with the higher courts, such as pornographers or flagburners, the Supreme Court would long ago have declared them unconstitutional.
     
    Old Jeff (Epstein) got a state deal, and then there was a fuss over a Trump appointee that made everyone suddenly interested and angry with Epstein apparent impunity , so the Feds came at him, because he had to be made an example of so the public did not lose confidence in the legal system. If they want to get a guy they get him. Now Chauvin knew he was being filmed and onlookers were threatening him with the footage being used against him. Not only onlookers but even the rookie cops there were expressing strong reservations about what Chauvin was doing. I feel sorry for his colleagues, who he brought down with him, but for Chauvin I have no absolutely no sympathy at all.

    Replies: @Redman

    Chauvin was following the MPD protocol for dealing with people having delirium episodes. This was readily available online until the MPD took it down after the Floyd situation.

    • Replies: @res
    @Redman

    This comment from then includes the link along with an excerpt of the relevant section.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/social-distancing-in-minneapolis/#comment-3926749

    It looks like the link is still there, but they removed the relevant section 5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS.
    http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300

    The new version consists of variations of


    While MN Statute includes Choke Holds as legally permissible in Deadly Force situations, MPD officers are prohibited from using such techniques (see the Prohibition on Neck Restraints and Choke Holds section in P&P 5-302).
     
    It appears the change was a result of changes in the policy.

    If anyone doubts the accuracy of my account or the excerpt I gave, here is an archive page from May 2020.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200527130744/http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300

    P.S. The troll smackdown following that comment was fun.

    Replies: @Sean

  105. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wilkey

    You make a good point about the cost of Simpson's murder defense, but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.

    That very real chance is also used in lawfare to intimidate and destroy good people -- and to control populations.

    If your pipes break, it's perhaps a few hundred or thousands of dollars of plumbing work -- which, by the way, a damn lawyer couldn't do if his shitty life depended on it.

    If you get sued or charged, it's possibly your life savings or a second mortgage to pay into what we all know is partially a rent-seeking profession.

    A rent-seeking profession.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work:

    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/vultures-eat-carrion-two-ribs-meat-61426765.jpg

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jonathan Mason, @scrivener3, @BBerliner, @Polistra, @MBlanc46

    but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.

    That’s why I’m extremely careful about what I say in person or online about anyone (even anonymously, which I assume, ultimately, is not) and I don’t have a Twitter or Instagram account.

    I also don’t leave online reviews (Yelp, Amazon sellers, etc.) lest I say something perceived as libel even if I thought it was innocuous or even complimentary. I have nothing to gain and potentially and a lot to lose by posting my honest opinions about someone or some group on Twitter or a business review on Yelp.

    You make an off-handed defamatory remark about someone— maybe you thought you read it somewhere about them— and you say it about the wrong person and it will destroy your life.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/movies/james-woods-sues-anonymous-twitter-user-10m-alleging-defamation-n401831

    James Woods Sues Anonymous Twitter User for $10M, Alleging Defamation
    Woods is suing for defamation and invasion of privacy by false light for an “outrageous” tweet claiming he uses cocaine.

    The guy finished out the last years of his life from a terminal disease and an ongoing multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit.

    https://www.newsweek.com/james-woods-coke-addict-defamation-lawsuit-538494

    Why Is Actor James Woods Ruthlessly Pursuing a Lawsuit Against a Dead Guy?

    …”Learn this,” [Woods] said in a tweet that has since been deleted. “Libel me, I’ll sue you. If you die, I’ll follow you to the bowels of Hell. Get it?”

    It is nearly a year later, and Woods can still be said to be in the bowels of hell fishing around for his $10 million…

    The guy Woods was suing was a Harvard graduate and I assume reasonably well off. But few if any people can withstand years of civil litigation and a $10 million judgment.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work

    Weren’t you the one looking into a Yale School of Mgmt. program? Talk about rent-seeking! Btw, the only reason I remembered you posting this is because you bragged about turning down the advances of a super-fit Japanese-American women which I couldn’t comprehend.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @BBerliner

    Weren’t you the one looking into a Yale School of Mgmt. program? Talk about rent-seeking!

    Weren't you the one who just said "That’s why I’m extremely careful about what I say in person or online about anyone (even anonymously, which I assume, ultimately, is not)?

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @BBerliner

    Thanks for your reply.


    ... a super-fit Japanese-American woman...
     
    I didn't say "super-fit;" I said "athletic-looking," meaning she was sporty and had a more athletic body than the usual Japanese pixie girl. She was also aggressive, which is why I said she was "not my type." I have always liked smart, petite brunettes (married one) but not insistent ones.
  106. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Arguably, Chauvin's actions did lead to Floyd's death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant - I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    Putting aside criminal law, from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it - for example they might decide that you are guilty of some crime. Once they make that decision their mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action. From the point that they have made their decision, they are no longer willing or capable of reacting to further inputs. I don't know what it is about police work or they type of people who are attracted to it that makes them reluctant to change their minds, but it's a real thing.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don't know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different and kept it up even after the ambulance had arrived. What may have started out as a reasonable restraint may at some point have become unreasonable when the circumstances changed but Chauvin kept doing the same thing and refused to react to these changes.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Art Deco, @Sean, @Dube, @Curmudgeon, @Mike Tre, @Anonymous

    This is a political show trial.
    Chauvin was a trainer for the MPD. There has been no statement made by anyone, alleging he failed to follow established MPD policies and procedures. Chauvin removed Floyd from the vehicle because of his difficulty breathing. If a prisoner is handcuffed, placing him on the ground in the position Floyd was in, is as close to “recovery” position as you can get. Recovery position allows saliva and vomit to drain away, preventing aspiration, which being upright or on his back, would not. The knee restraint used is part of the MPD training done by Israelis. It certainly has bad optics, but is not fatal.
    The question I have had from the beginning,is why were 3 cars dispatched to an alleged passing of counterfeit money followed by grab and dash?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Curmudgeon


    Chauvin was a trainer for the MPD.
     
    Oh.

    Source?

    Replies: @res

  107. @SFG
    They did this to the officers with Rodney King, no? And there was earlier video showing him attacking the officers that never made it out of the courtroom?

    I was in my early teenage years so I don't remember all the details.

    Replies: @Icy Blast, @Morton's toes

    I distinctly recall asking a tennis acquaintance who was a judge how this wasn’t double jeopardy. There are not many clear memories of 1993 that I possess but this is crystalline.

    “This ain’t double jeopardy?”

    “Nope. Different statute.”

    Also implied: dumb question. (I am not a lawyer.)

    That guy with the videotape machine was a fool. They prosecuted the guys who attacked R. Denny in the aftermath riot on video. I wonder if they would be inclined to do that in 2021?

  108. @Gordo
    Its in Blackstones: ‘‘no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life, more than once for the same offense,’’

    Since 2003 however, when Bliar was PM, there has been no double jeopardy protection in the UK, very handy if the government is determined to get someone.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    Since 2003 however, when Bliar was PM, there has been no double jeopardy protection in the UK, very handy if the government is determined to get someone.

    Protection from double jeopardy was done away with because the powers that be were determined to have a second shot at the white defendants acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Rob McX

    "the powers that be were determined to have a second shot at the white defendants acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence"

    The lab (LGC) that made the "forensic breakthrough" (DNA amplification of a microscopic spot of Lawrence's blood allegedly found on a defendant's clothing) had only recently been privatised - I remember reading a report (can't find it) on the lab in the Telegraph that was pretty much an advertorial.

    Might be this, it's paywalled

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/9001164/How-being-a-private-company-has-helped-LGC-solve-the-murders-of-Stephen-Lawrence-and-Milly-Dowler.html

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/293439/Stephen-Lawrence-murder-The-smallest-ever-speck-of-blood-to-snare-a-killer

    The same lab has wrongfully convicted people

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-accused-adam-scott-was-victim-forensics-error-regulator-finds-8193163.html

    The trouble is that when things get politicised, or even when they don't and you have corrupt staff, there's a huge incentive for fraud/cheating/fabrication.

    https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/forensics-in-crisis/3009117.article


    Not that things were much better pre-privatisation. It's been memoryholed, but hundreds if not thousands of convictions were overturned after a retired government scientist whose name I forget turned out to be pretty bad at his job.

    Replies: @Rob McX

  109. @Hypnotoad666
    I can't imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    But sadly. the administration of Justice is yet another institution that has been totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists and will stop at nothing to ruin the people they are against.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Art Deco, @Louis Renault, @Lurker, @Paul Jolliffe, @Paul Jolliffe

    totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists

    So which is it left or fascist?

    Or by ‘fascist’ you just mean ‘stuff I don’t like’? In which case why not use ‘communist’?

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Lurker


    So which is it left or fascist?
     
    Not mutually exclusive. Italian Fascism and German Nazism were both explicitly socialist.

    Replies: @Roderick Spode

    , @anon
    @Lurker

    So which is it left or fascist?

    Here are some quotes. Are they left, or fascist? Who would say such things?


    The state reserves the right to be the sole interpreter of the needs of society.
     

    Journalism is not a profession, but a mission.
     

    We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them.</blockquote.
     

     
  110. @Redneck farmer
    @Hypnotoad666

    "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, are you going to follow the law, or you going to prevent race riots"?

    Replies: @John Johnson, @PiltdownMan

    “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, are you going to follow the law, or you going to prevent race riots”?

    This is exactly what will happen which is why I don’t see the point in laboriously going over the evidence.

    They are going to try to get as many Blacks on the jury as possible and then give them the choice of conviction or let the city burn.

    The prosecution recently added a third degree murder charge option which shows they have a weak hand. If he actually gets second degree it will later be appealed and reduced once Blacks and liberals have moved on to another case.

    Floyd was on multiple drugs, had serious heart problems and a case of covid. It’s impossible to prove that Chauvin killed him. This is a weak case and they should have plea bargained right away.

  111. @Lurker
    @Hypnotoad666


    totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists
     
    So which is it left or fascist?

    Or by 'fascist' you just mean 'stuff I don't like'? In which case why not use 'communist'?

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @anon

    So which is it left or fascist?

    Not mutually exclusive. Italian Fascism and German Nazism were both explicitly socialist.

    • Replies: @Roderick Spode
    @Hypnotoad666

    Yes, but they were Right-Socialist.

    Surely you have encountered the “political compass” meme at some point.

  112. @Mr. Anon
    @Jonathan Mason


    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.
     
    He had enough fentanyl in his system to be lethal to some people. What is lethal to him would depend on his particular circumstances. But in principal, it was a lethal dose. He also had THC and meth in his system. And he had heart disease. And Corona virus. Moreover, almost the exact same set of circumstances as happened last May had happened a year before:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/19-days-before-his-death-george-floyd-swallowed-drugs-when-arrested/

    He was arrested, swallowed his stash, and had to be taken to the Hospital for an OD.

    Replies: @Redman, @ic1000

    Thanks. I didn’t the iSteve post you linked. It’s certainly relevant to Chauvin’s defense and thus this post.

    State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. Derek Michael Chauvin, Defendant.
    Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646
    Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Additional Evidence
    Aug. 28, 2020

    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE the Defendant, Derek Michael Chauvin, may offer at trial evidence and circumstance of the following:

    [On May 6, 2019,] Mr. George Floyd was engaged in the sale and possession of large quantities of controlled substances. When approached by police he placed drugs in his mouth in an attempt to avoid arrest, and swallowed them. When interacting with police he engaged in diversionary behavior such as crying and acted irrationally. An ambulance was called to transport Mr. Floyd to the hospital.

    For the 95% of Americans who trust mainstream sources to deliver the news, “It’s what you don’t know that you don’t know.” As if another example is needed.

    • Replies: @houston 1992
    @ic1000

    is that admissible as evidence? I thought the judge had already partially blocked some evidence that would have been exculpatory for the policeman

  113. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Arguably, Chauvin’s actions did lead to Floyd’s death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out?

    Take off your lawyer hat and try thinking like a human being. (1) he wasn't face down, (2) he was complaining when he was bolt upright too, (3) had he and his chums left the scene 'ere the police arrived, he'd have expired anyway; (4) they'd called the ambulance and were waiting for it when he expired. The ambulance was later than they needed to be because they relied on a GPS which took them to the wrong location.

    Replies: @ganderson, @Lot, @Reg Cæsar

    Mr. Deco- agreed, and Chauvin is screwed.

    The ambulance getting lost deal puzzles me- 38th and Chicago is not in a tucked-away obscure corner of the city; it’s the intersection of two major South Minneapolis thoroughfares.

  114. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jack D


    Arguably, Chauvin’s actions did lead to Floyd’s death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant – I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.
     
    I think the issues present here are that people whom police are attempting to take into custody commonly make false complaints like these in order to dissuade the officers from arresting them, and that people under the influence of intoxicants to the point of visible disorientation can be a danger to themselves and so restraining them is seen to be the best course. I think we discussed the phenomenon of "excited delirium" here way back at the time of the death of St. George - people under the influence of heavy duty drugs (commonly a mixture thereof) can get to a point of excitement and disorientation that they do crazy things that lead to their maiming or death. So the idea here is to restrain them so they can calm down.

    You'll never convince me that Chauvin conspired with two rookies - one white, one mulatto - and another Hmong officer to kill Floyd for no particular reason. These guys just wound up interacting with the wrong street criminal on the wrong day during the wrong moral panic and their lives will never be the same because of it. It all has the feel of throwing virgins into the volcano, and very few people have the courage to stand up to the mob.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    …people under the influence of intoxicants to the point of visible disorientation can be a danger to themselves and so restraining them is seen to be the best course.

    And a danger to others too, of course. What if Floyd had driven off and run someone over? Of course, from a strictly utilitarian point of view, it would be better if the police had let him do so – far more people died as a result of his demise than he himself could have killed.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Rob McX

    Sean says (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that when Chauvin arrived and began kneeling, Floyd was already cuffed and in no position to drive off.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Rob McX

  115. @Jonathan Mason
    Well look at the OJ Simpson case. He got off on the horrific murder charges and then was sent to prison for 17 years for a relatively trivial charge concerning a dispute over some memorabilia that was made out to be akin to a major bank robbery.

    So you get off on a murder charge at the state level, and then you are judged with violating somebody's civil rights at the federal level. Or with killing somebody while not wearing a mask, or something.

    It is a feature, not a bug, of the US legal system that people are charged with horrific sounding offenses for actions that are actually quite trivial, and that to avoid a trial the offenses are bargained down to something a bit more realistic.

    I don't know whether the supreme Court has ever ruled on whether plea bargaining is constitutional, but you have to love our whacky legal system! It's what makes America great.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Hibernian, @Redman, @William Badwhite, @Deep Anonymous

    Yes, the Supreme Court has held that plea bargains are generally permissible (and certainly not unconstitutional). Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).

    “The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called “plea bargaining,” is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged. If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States and the Federal Government would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities.” Id. at 260.

    Nonetheless, due process applies—if a guilty plea is induced by a promise by the prosecutor, that promise generally is enforeceable, and in that case, the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor had breached the plea agreement and vacated the sentence.

  116. FWIW (nothing), my understanding is at the state level he was charged with murder while at the federal level he was charged with violating Floyd’s civil right not to be murdered. So not the same crime, I think.

    I think it is curious that the authorities in MN did not disclose the video of Floyd being more or less gently being loaded into the police vehicle and then forcing his way out. For months the only video available was a handcuffed Floyd being walked to the police vehicle and then cut to Floyd inexplicably on the asphalt with 4 cops kneeling on him.

  117. @Wilkey

    You can’t even get your Constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy through a plea deal.
     
    The bigger threat to our Constitutional rights has come from the way in which the Supreme Court has allowed the government”s supposed obligation to end discrimination to override expressed rights like religion, speech, assembly, and property. That obligation now even extends not only to actions which result in actual discrimination, but which simply hurt people’s feelings. There are now a whole lot things which businesses and even individuals cannot do or say, or which you can do or say but can get you sued by private citizens.

    California is apparently considering a law that would ban stores from having separate departments for “boys” and “girls.” Even just a decade or so ago there is almost no one who wouldn’t have considered this a brazen attack on free speech. But it is now probably considered legal by most members of the Democratic Party, and probably by most judges, as well.

    The Left would probably argue that this is simply practical - we have to end discrimination...because reasons, so no Constitutional right should be allowed to get in the way. Yet practical reasons to rein in other Constitutional rights, like say the 14th Amendment’s supposed right to birthright citizenship, even for children of illegal aliens, can only be changed via amendment.

    The Constitution today sometimes seems like little more than a partisan weapon that is wielded mostly by one party to force governments to do what the Left wants them to do, and to keep them from doing what the Left doesn’t want them to do, and brazenly ignored when it’s inconvenient.

    Replies: @Tono Bungay, @International Jew, @Alice in Wonderland

    The bigger threat to our Constitutional rights has come from the way in which the Supreme Court has allowed the government”s supposed obligation to end discrimination to override expressed rights like religion, speech, assembly, and property.

    To be fair, it is the woke whites who want to take away your rights like religion, assembly, and speech. The folks in the hood just want your property.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Alice in Wonderland


    The folks in the hood just want your property.
     
    Women are property?
  118. Feds will probably go after this case too:

    “A [Philippine-American, 30 year old] Navy veteran who was going through an episode of paranoia died after an Antioch police officer knelt on his neck for several minutes, according to CBSN Bay Area.”

    https://www.asian-dawn.com/2021/02/25/navy-vet-died-after-police-officer-knelt-on-his-neck-for-5-minutes/

    And the victim’s family has hired a black “civil rights” attorney:

    “I refer to it as the George Floyd technique, that’s what snuffed the life out of him and that cannot be a lawful technique,” Burris said. “We see not only violations of his civil rights but also violations against the rights of his mother and sister’s, who saw what happened to him.”

  119. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "On the other hand, the federal Constitutions ban on double jeopard does not, curiously enough, apply to the federal government when it really feels like imposing double jeopardy on somebody who was acquitted in a state trial, such as the LAPD cops in the Rodney King case."

    Then this would definitely be the landmark case of the 21st Century, if Officer Chauvin sues the Federal Government for double jeopardy, and the Supreme Court would have to rule on whether or not the Constitution's double jeopardy clause is applicable to the federal government.

    Chauvin might win the argument, seeing the makeup of the court. He might.

    On a lighter note...

    Steve, I am surprised that as a golf aficionado, you have not directly commented on Eldrick; he's recently been in the news last few days.

    Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian

    Dude, are you kidding? The Most Supremo Court Evah already has their dodge ready to hand. They won’t hear the case due to “lack of standing”. Then they stride away, dusting their hands of the whole thing.

  120. @Sean
    @Jack D

    While a lot of what you say is true, Floyd dying changed everything, If someone happens to expire while you are doing something illegal to them, even if it's only technically illegal and quite commonly done without causing problems, you are up the proverbial creek. Chauvin did not deserve to get away with what he did, which included ignoring multiple colleagues.

    Chauvin arrived on the scene after Floyd was handcuffed, and so Floyd was already handcuffed when the bystander phone video starts. What was being done at that point had nothing to do with the authorized transient use of the restraint technique for getting the cuffs on a resisting arrestee. Chauvin initiated and sustained the use of the technique by way of a physical punishment of Floyd for his previous passive aggressive resisting of arrest.

    Though often observed in the breach, police officers are certainly aware they not allowed to use punitive force; what Chauvin did on the phone video was technically an assault from the very begining, and the risks increased with every second until Floyd up and died on Chauvin. So Chauvin was very reckless and he's paying the price of foolhardiness.

    Replies: @Jack D, @vhrm, @Macumazahn, @Art Deco

    I wasn’t there and I haven’t seen all the video but there seems to be some difference concerning the facts – either Chauvin was restraining Floyd merely to punish him for having resisted being put in the cop car or he was being restrained for Floyd’s own safety and that of others. Presumably this will be clarified somewhat at trial.

    Motive is not an element of most crimes anyway and unless Chauvin confesses or lets this slip , we are never going to know that Chauvin restrained Floyd for the purpose of punishing him. Perhaps it can be inferred from Chauvin’s behavior but I don’t see how the prosecutors could show beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was intentionally trying to punish Floyd. Based upon what we know, I think that is a bit of a stretch. While Chauvin probably does not dare take the stand himself, he will present experts at trial who will say that this was an appropriate technique under the circumstances. If Chauvin really wanted to punish Floyd, there are other things that he could have done that would have been more painful and less time consuming than kneeling on him for over 8 minutes. Very often when the cops are trying to put an uncooperative person in the back of their car, that person “accidentally” bumps their head on the roof of the car or he “accidentally” falls flat on his face. Etc.

    I agree with you that generally speaking, someone dying changes the legal posture a LOT. If you are drunk and have a fender bender it’s one thing. If the person in the other car is not belted and goes flying out the window and dies, it’s much more serious even if it’s the same exact fender bender.

  121. @petit bourgeois
    The second amendment didn't even apply to the states until 2010, in the seminal case of McDonald v. Chicago.

    Federalism and the 14th amendment's selective incorporation doctrine is a strange legal creature.

    Replies: @Ben tillman

    The plain language of the 2A applies equally to the States and the Union. And you’re right about the incorporation doctrine.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Ben tillman

    No it doesn't. Before the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine", none of the provisions in the bill of rights applied to the states (although many state constitutions had their own "right to bear arms" provisions). For example, some states had established churches though this was forbidden to the Federal government by the 1st Amendment.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @ben tillman

  122. @Sean
    @Jack D

    While a lot of what you say is true, Floyd dying changed everything, If someone happens to expire while you are doing something illegal to them, even if it's only technically illegal and quite commonly done without causing problems, you are up the proverbial creek. Chauvin did not deserve to get away with what he did, which included ignoring multiple colleagues.

    Chauvin arrived on the scene after Floyd was handcuffed, and so Floyd was already handcuffed when the bystander phone video starts. What was being done at that point had nothing to do with the authorized transient use of the restraint technique for getting the cuffs on a resisting arrestee. Chauvin initiated and sustained the use of the technique by way of a physical punishment of Floyd for his previous passive aggressive resisting of arrest.

    Though often observed in the breach, police officers are certainly aware they not allowed to use punitive force; what Chauvin did on the phone video was technically an assault from the very begining, and the risks increased with every second until Floyd up and died on Chauvin. So Chauvin was very reckless and he's paying the price of foolhardiness.

    Replies: @Jack D, @vhrm, @Macumazahn, @Art Deco

    Chauvin arrived on the scene after Floyd was handcuffed, and so Floyd was already handcuffed when the bystander phone video starts.

    what Chauvin did on the phone video

    The bodycam videos / transcripts provide a lot of context and the story of significantly different. As was already mentioned up-thread Floyd was complaining about not being able to breathe (and having some sort of anxiety /panic attack ) for several minutes before Chauvin got on the scene. It was bad enough that Floyd himself and to be laid down on the ground.

    Also, “If someone happens to expire while you are doing something illegal to them, even if it’s only technically illegal” is true, but Chauvin wasn’t doing anything even technically illegal that I’m aware of. Neck compression was an allowed technique at the time in his department.

    And what in your eyes makes this “technically an assault”? Whether it’s an assault is dependent on intent and there is no evidence that was the intent.

    Massage, CPR or surgery also aren’t generally assault (or battery) technically or otherwise even though those same activities CAN be, based on context.

    • Agree: Redman, Dnought
  123. @Rob McX
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)


    ...people under the influence of intoxicants to the point of visible disorientation can be a danger to themselves and so restraining them is seen to be the best course.
     
    And a danger to others too, of course. What if Floyd had driven off and run someone over? Of course, from a strictly utilitarian point of view, it would be better if the police had let him do so - far more people died as a result of his demise than he himself could have killed.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Sean says (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that when Chauvin arrived and began kneeling, Floyd was already cuffed and in no position to drive off.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jack D


    Sean says (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that when Chauvin arrived and began kneeling, Floyd was already cuffed and in no position to drive off.
     
    We talk about the specifics but I have yet to hear a constructive answer for what cops are supposed to do to a large black man under the influence of narcotics where there is probable cause of the commission of a crime but who doesn't feel like getting arrested today. It's parallel to "kids in cages" in that way.

    The implication, but not the text seems to be "let the black guy do what he wants."

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Rob McX
    @Jack D

    But the choice facing the police was still the same - complete the arrest and take him to the station, or let him go. Floyd didn't want to be detained any longer.

    Replies: @Jack D

  124. Chauvin swore fealty to an anti-white system. Now that it’s turned on him, he’s getting exactly what he deserves.

  125. @Ben tillman
    @petit bourgeois

    The plain language of the 2A applies equally to the States and the Union. And you’re right about the incorporation doctrine.

    Replies: @Jack D

    No it doesn’t. Before the 14th Amendment and the “incorporation doctrine”, none of the provisions in the bill of rights applied to the states (although many state constitutions had their own “right to bear arms” provisions). For example, some states had established churches though this was forbidden to the Federal government by the 1st Amendment.

    • Agree: Federalist
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jack D


    No it doesn’t. Before the 14th Amendment and the “incorporation doctrine”, none of the provisions in the bill of rights applied to the states (although many state constitutions had their own “right to bear arms” provisions). For example, some states had established churches though this was forbidden to the Federal government by the 1st Amendment.
     
    The Second Amendment is odd insofar as you can read it to guarantee to the States their continued ability to maintain militias free of Federal interference (i.e., the Federal government won't possess a monopoly on armed troops, reflecting the nervousness with a "standing army"). But then again it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to "the people" and not (or, not solely) to "the State Militias."
    , @ben tillman
    @Jack D

    Objection: Non-responsive.

    The plain language of the 2A says it applies equally to the States and the Union.

    Would you care to try again?

    Replies: @Jack D

  126. @Federalist
    @Jack D


    The legalistic reason is the concept of “dual sovereigns”. We have TWO governments and two sets of laws in the US – the state (all local governments derive their authority from the state government) and the federal.

    So (according to the SCOTUS) when you violate both a Federal law and a State law you are not being tried twice for the “same offense” – you are being tried for two separate offenses.
     
    Exactly.

    I don't necessarily agree that this interpretation is proper. But this is unquestionably how the issue has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court.

    The issue isn't incorporation. The prohibition against double jeopardy always applied to the federal govt. Through incorporation, it has been held to apply to the states as well. The reasoning behind the result isn't that the prohibition against double jeopardy doesn't apply in some cases. It's that when a state and the feds both prosecute, it's not double jeopardy.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Jack D correctly describes the “separate sovereigns” doctrine, but I think the problem is where as here the second prosecution would be a sham based upon a nebulous “civil rights” offense rather than a bone fide second crime simply arising from the same transaction implicating the Federal Government’s interests. This sham style of double “civil rights” prosecution was pioneered in the “Civil Rights” era (go figure) on the justification that Southern juries would not convict members of the Klan etc. regardless of the evidence, so the Federal government felt the need to step in and prosecute in order to break up the Klan.

    “Separate sovereigns” doctrines is often invoked in the context of Organized Crime/RICO prosecutions, because with a few narrow exceptions murder itself is not a Federal crime (although murder for hire is a Federal Crime and predicate offense under RICO). So what will happen is that the U.S. Attorneys Office will take the first shot with a months long RICO prosecution, and then the State will prosecute the actual murder cases later.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    See: title -The Age of Entitlement author - Christopher Caldwell
    Content: presents a 2 Constitution theory, in which the 1964 CRA supersedes the previous Constitution. Caldwell traces the process by which this occurs from the conventional legal and financial aspects, and presents a coherent case that the descendants of the 1945 US population now assumed to violate the 1964 CRA by intrinsic "Whiteness" and thus have no legal rights whatsoever (e.g., my examples being that right to property is negated by "black reparations", right to life is negated by "civil rights" offenses )
    Author's background: NY Times.

    Note that Caldwell leaves out HBD, cultural differences, the Gilded Age migration, etc. Nor does he include cross-cultural references. His book is entirely conventional, but also revises history as it has been presented to the American (and Western) population, including its professional classes. Caldwell appears to have been trying to explain how Trump came to be elected but, like Michael Moore, has accomplished a more than he may have intended.

  127. @Truth
    This is not double jeopardy, any more than the Browns suing OJ for "violation of civil rights."

    But cheer up Steve-O; you and the hoi polloi will soon have a news network all your own...

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/qatars-al-jazeera-launches-right-wing-news-platform-americans-who-feel-left-out-msm

    Replies: @Abe, @Mr. Anon

    This is not double jeopardy, any more than the Browns suing OJ for “violation of civil rights.”

    The Browns sued OJ themselves, in civil court, for wrongful death, not “violation of civil rights”. That isn’t double jeopardy; they didn’t bring the criminal prosecution against him. They aren’t The State.

    You might have known all that if you weren’t a moron.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  128. @ic1000
    @Mr. Anon

    Thanks. I didn't the iSteve post you linked. It's certainly relevant to Chauvin's defense and thus this post.

    State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. Derek Michael Chauvin, Defendant.
    Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646
    Defendant's Notice of Intent to Introduce Additional Evidence
    Aug. 28, 2020


    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE the Defendant, Derek Michael Chauvin, may offer at trial evidence and circumstance of the following:

    [On May 6, 2019,] Mr. George Floyd was engaged in the sale and possession of large quantities of controlled substances. When approached by police he placed drugs in his mouth in an attempt to avoid arrest, and swallowed them. When interacting with police he engaged in diversionary behavior such as crying and acted irrationally. An ambulance was called to transport Mr. Floyd to the hospital.
     
    For the 95% of Americans who trust mainstream sources to deliver the news, "It's what you don't know that you don't know." As if another example is needed.

    Replies: @houston 1992

    is that admissible as evidence? I thought the judge had already partially blocked some evidence that would have been exculpatory for the policeman

  129. @Jack D
    @Ben tillman

    No it doesn't. Before the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine", none of the provisions in the bill of rights applied to the states (although many state constitutions had their own "right to bear arms" provisions). For example, some states had established churches though this was forbidden to the Federal government by the 1st Amendment.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @ben tillman

    No it doesn’t. Before the 14th Amendment and the “incorporation doctrine”, none of the provisions in the bill of rights applied to the states (although many state constitutions had their own “right to bear arms” provisions). For example, some states had established churches though this was forbidden to the Federal government by the 1st Amendment.

    The Second Amendment is odd insofar as you can read it to guarantee to the States their continued ability to maintain militias free of Federal interference (i.e., the Federal government won’t possess a monopoly on armed troops, reflecting the nervousness with a “standing army”). But then again it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to “the people” and not (or, not solely) to “the State Militias.”

  130. @Jonathan Mason
    @ic1000

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide.

    Of course any time somebody's charged with a high profile capital offense, their lawyers are going to throw up all kinds of smokescreens in an attempt to influence the potential jury pool.

    That is what lawyers do. It is just part of the process.

    Replies: @ic1000, @Redman, @Genrick Yagoda, @Art Deco, @Mr. Anon, @Hanoi Paris Hilton

    The coroners report and autopsy of Floyd quitely released within days of his death —but effectively buried politically for obvious ideological advantage by the likes of MN A.G. Keith Ellison— determined that the level of fentanyl and fentanyl metabolites already in Floyd’s bloodstream was at least twice and likely four times the “LD50”, i.e., the dosage required to kill half those displaying it. Floyds’ blood levels of methamphetamines, cocaine, and cannabinoids were also significant (if probably not in themselves fatal).

    Floyd didn’t violently resist arrest and admitted freely that he had just “hooped”, i.e., inserted anally, his remaining stash of fentanyl… likely trying to reduce his criminal liabilities (beyond passing the counterfeit $20 bill), if that stash were to be found intact on his person.

    While from the moment of his arrest (the police had been warned in advance by the complainant shopkeeper that Floyd’s behavior was extremely unhinged) Floyd was acting terrified and irrational, heart-breakingly crying out for his late mother, the hooping no doubt significantly increased his fentanyl intoxication. The autopsy also shows Floyd’s lungs to weigh three times the expected amount, indicating they were almost completely fluid-filled; a characteristic of fentanyl toxicology, and indicative that his “I can’t breathe” pleas weren’t a shabby ploy.

    Floyd’s petty criminality subsequent to his spending five years in prison appeared not to have been notably thuggish or violent. He wasn’t an evil man and may well have been trying to get his life in order, but his drug-induced cessation of breathing and unconsciousness some forty minutes after his initial arrest was entirely a result of his own actions and his misdirected life choices.

    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @By-tor
    @Hanoi Paris Hilton

    He put a gun to a woman's belly in Houston to rob her of cash and drugs in 2007.

    Thankfully, some of the British press is not as shamelessly dishonest as the US' press-government complex.

    Floyd had landed five years behind bars in 2009 for an assault and robbery two years earlier, and before that, had been convicted of charges ranging from theft with a firearm to drugs, the Daily Mail reported.

    George Floyd moved to Minneapolis in 2014 for a fresh start after being released from prison in Houston, Texas following an arrest for aggravated robbery.

    Floyd had turned his life around but died on Monday after a white officer knelt on his neck while arresting him for allegedly paying with a fake $20 bill. [ No, he overdosed after 'hooping' the Fentanyl. He admitted the act to police. That is why he couldn't breathe. ]

    None of the officers could have been aware of Floyd's more than a decade-old criminal history at the time of the arrest.

    The 46-year-old had left behind his past in Houston after being released from prison stemming from a 2007 robbery.

    He plead guilty to entering a woman’s home, pointing a gun at her stomach and searching the home for drugs and money, according to court records.

    Floyd was sentenced to 10 months in jail for having less than one gram of cocaine in a December 2005 arrest.

    He had previously been sentenced to eight months for the same offense, stemming from an October 2002 arrest.

    Floyd was arrested in 2002 for criminal trespassing and served 30 days in jail.

    He had another stint for a theft in August 1998.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8366533/George-Floyd-moved-Minneapolis-start-new-life-released-prison-Texas.html

  131. @Jack D
    @Rob McX

    Sean says (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that when Chauvin arrived and began kneeling, Floyd was already cuffed and in no position to drive off.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Rob McX

    Sean says (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that when Chauvin arrived and began kneeling, Floyd was already cuffed and in no position to drive off.

    We talk about the specifics but I have yet to hear a constructive answer for what cops are supposed to do to a large black man under the influence of narcotics where there is probable cause of the commission of a crime but who doesn’t feel like getting arrested today. It’s parallel to “kids in cages” in that way.

    The implication, but not the text seems to be “let the black guy do what he wants.”

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    I don't know exactly what they SHOULD do, but I do know what they SHOULDN'T do - kill the guy.

    I'm not an expert on police tactics but there should be some way to effectuate an arrest without killing the guy.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Anonymous

  132. @petit bourgeois
    @Hibernian

    Nevada may not be California, but more than half of Nevada jurisprudence is based upon California law. I've seen it with my own two beady eyes. When a state has no established law, it borrows from its neighbor.

    Shit, there wasn't even a law school in Nevada until 1998. Until 2001, every lawyer from Nevada was educated out of state.

    OJ Simpson deserved some comeuppance in Nevada.

    Replies: @Polistra

    I took “Nevada is not California” to mean that since they are separate jurisdictions we have yet another reason the situation would not indicate double jeopardy. (Aside from the fact that they are entirely separate crimes under consideration.) Is that not right?

    • Replies: @petit bourgeois
    @Polistra

    Correct. Strongarm robbery in Nevada is not the same as murder in California, so no double jeopardy.

    But the judge and jury in Nevada did not forget that OJ got away with murder, and gave him a conviction and sentence accordingly.

    Orenthal got an appropriate sentence. While it may not technically be double jeopardy, the practical effect of that Nevada criminal prosecution is that the judge and jury punished him for a crime in California for which he was acquitted. Call it "karma is a bitch."

    Chauvin will also be acquitted. Those in favor of acquittal, like me, can then be called "chauvinists."

  133. @Percy Gryce
    Steve, I realize there's too much iSteve content to keep up with, but NYT has unmasked a hate hoax:

    https://twitter.com/powellnyt/status/1364676518836903939?s=20

    Replies: @Percy Gryce, @Tono Bungay, @Ripple Earthdevil, @Polistra, @PiltdownMan

    Needless to say, it wasn’t the NYT that unmasked anything.

    Also, it belongs in this thread, where it is already:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/blm-rakes-in-90-million-in-2020/#comment-4490455

  134. Going off the very deep end.

    Biden’s transgender assistant health secretary nominee REFUSES questions on child sex changes in confirmation hearing

    After comparing transgender surgery to “genital mutilation,” Paul asked Levine whether she believes “that minors are capable of making such a life-changing decision as changing one’s sex?”

    Levine dodged, telling Paul that “transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field,” and that she’d be happy to talk the issue through with the Kentucky Republican – after being confirmed to the job.

    Paul pressed on. “Do you support the government intervening to override the parents’ consent to give a child puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and/or amputation of breasts and genitalia?” he asked, to which Levine gave the same response.

    Mutilating children is ok, BTFO libertarians!

    I feel the next step will be paedophilia which will be Twitter-justified because one “should leave people alone”.

  135. • Replies: @wren
    @wren

    Oops. That was mentioned.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @wren

    Now there's another guy that knows how to spell it. That's at least 2.

    Replies: @wren

  136. @Philo of Alexandria
    The dual sovereignty doctrine holds that because the federal and state governments are distinct sovereigns, acts constituting offenses against state and federal law are not identical for purposes of double jeopardy. The reasoning for the doctrine is difficult to resist, and the Supreme Court recently rebuked a challenge to it on a 7-2 decision in Gamble v. United States (with Gorsuch and Ginsburg dissenting).

    It’s true that an unfortunate consequence of the doctrine is that it enables federal retrials after justified state acquittals. On the brighter side, it sometimes allows death penalty states to try criminals on capital charges after they’ve gotten life from another sovereign jurisdiction.

    Replies: @Jon, @Abolish_public_education

    On the brighter side, it sometimes allows death penalty states to try criminals on capital charges after they’ve gotten life from another sovereign jurisdiction.

    So someone who would have died of old age in prison will die … of old age … in the ‘death row’ part of the prison.

    Dying on Death Row (other than by execution)
    https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dying+on+death+row+(other+than+by+execution).-a0458550933

  137. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wilkey

    You make a good point about the cost of Simpson's murder defense, but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.

    That very real chance is also used in lawfare to intimidate and destroy good people -- and to control populations.

    If your pipes break, it's perhaps a few hundred or thousands of dollars of plumbing work -- which, by the way, a damn lawyer couldn't do if his shitty life depended on it.

    If you get sued or charged, it's possibly your life savings or a second mortgage to pay into what we all know is partially a rent-seeking profession.

    A rent-seeking profession.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work:

    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/vultures-eat-carrion-two-ribs-meat-61426765.jpg

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jonathan Mason, @scrivener3, @BBerliner, @Polistra, @MBlanc46

    You make a good point about the cost of Simpson’s murder defense, but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.

    You’re very right, of course, but the MSM are careful always to frame examples as flukes rather than what they really are: the nature of the beast. If the Duke Lacrosse players’ families hadn’t been able to afford good lawyers (a couple families took out second mortgages on their houses–they weren’t all rich as the MSM portrayed them) and if those lawyers hadn’t undertaken intensive investigatory work, those boys would still be rotting in prison today.

    And not to put too fine a point on it, but ‘rotting in prison’ is very much a euphemism for what would be happening to those boys, on a daily basis. And every self-styled ‘liberal’ ‘progressive’ and ‘SJW’ in the country would still be cheering. BTW: Mike Nifong was sentenced to 24 hours in prison.

  138. @ES
    Michael Powell's bio on the NY Times web site:

    Michael Powell is a national reporter covering issues around free speech and expression, and stories capturing intellectual and campus debate. Prior to that, he was the Sports of The Times columnist for six years, wrote the Gotham column for the Metro section, was a national economics writer for Business, and covered the Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani presidential campaigns in 2008. He came to The Times in 2007.

    Mr. Powell was part of the team that won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News for its swift and sweeping coverage of the sex scandal that resulted in the resignation of Governor Eliot Spitzer.

    Before joining The Times, Mr. Powell worked for The Washington Post from 1996 to 2006, where he covered the 2000 presidential campaign and later served as New York bureau chief.

    He began his career in 1984 at the Burlington Free Press, going on to positions with the Bergen Record, New York Newsday and the New York Observer.

    He studied American and African history at SUNY Purchase College, worked as a tenant organizer in East Flatbush and received his master’s degree from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism in 1984.

    His and his wife have two sons. They live in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn.
     
    His picture is on the site showing he's white. A very brave man. Wonder how long until he's cancelled?

    Replies: @Jon

    Skimming the headlines under his bio, he seems to write a lot about dangerous topics, and to take a surprisingly even-handed approach. You are right, his days are numbered.

  139. Double Jeopardy!? Who the f**k cares about that? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!

    https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/what-do-yale-students-think-of-u-s-constitution/

  140. All I can say is, when talking heads explained how trying the Rodney King cops (who were acquitted, let’s not forget, which is not going to happen here) wasn’t double jeopardy, I had a bad feeling about it, but I pretended to believe them. Now I don’t. I know the MSM is simply made up of a bunch of lying shits.

  141. @Jack D
    @Rob McX

    Sean says (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that when Chauvin arrived and began kneeling, Floyd was already cuffed and in no position to drive off.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Rob McX

    But the choice facing the police was still the same – complete the arrest and take him to the station, or let him go. Floyd didn’t want to be detained any longer.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Rob McX

    Letting him go was not in the cards (though maybe letting him go with a ticket might have been appropriate - he had passed a counterfeit $20, not killed someone). If they couldn't stuff the giant into the back of a squad car, the could have called for a paddy wagon. He was cuffed and wasn't going anywhere in the meantime.

    Replies: @unit472, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar

  142. When did the blogger become a constitutionalist?

    In the Rodney King case, the DoJ’s follow-up, civil rights (i.e. political) prosecution of Ofcrs Powell, Breseno, and Koon was outrageous.

    At trial, the government is supposed to put all of its legal theories on the table when it presents its version of the facts of the case. If it loses, it’s not allowed to produce a different set of legal theories to explain the same set of facts (i.e. jeopardy).

    [MORE]

    As I posted yesterday, in regards to Garland’s confirmation hearing, it would be nice to hear a senator ask an AG nominee what he planned do to rein-in those zealous, US attorneys.

  143. @Icy Blast
    @SFG

    Bush Senior ordered the officers who arrested Rodney King to be tried a second time. They were, he got verdict he wanted, and Democrats, declared as well as those (like Bush Senior himself) in disguise, danced in the streets. I saw Daryl Gates at a local grocery store once, I asked him about this, and he just ignored me.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer

    Yeah, but how and why were the officers nailed the 2nd time? The first time the jury let them off because there was incontrovertible evidence that King had resisted arrest. He was just being tasered, anyway – it looked terrible but wasn’t. He was fine afterwards. So what did they get him on?

  144. @Art Deco
    @Hypnotoad666

    I can’t imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    Unless the prosecutor hits the jackpot (see the prosecution of Dharun Ravi in Middlesex County, NJ in 2011 for an example of that), there should be a critical mass on the jury to prevent a conviction. An acquittal would be quite surprising; I cannot imagine it would occur bar in circumstances where the Democratic voters on the jury are all people who do not have much emotional investment in public affairs. What Chauvin did do or did not do is a matter of indifference to gentry liberals and black chauvinists; he's a deplorable who arrested a black man, and that cannot stand.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Paperback Writer

    That’s hard to say. So much has changed in the last year, it’s dizzying.

    Recall the Amadou Diallo case. Sympathetic victim, unlike Fentanyl George, who once held a gun to a pregnant woman’s abdomen. Diallo happened to resemble a neighborhood rape suspect and made the mistake of reaching for his wallet to show his ID to the cops because he wasn’t American. The cops thought it was a gun. Tragedy ensued.

    The city was in an uproar & the venue had to be moved upstate. Four blacks on the jury, black forewoman who had once lived in the Bronx. Everyone I knew thought they were a hanging jury.

    They acquitted. The forewoman was asked how she felt about people who didn’t accept the verdict. She said, “tough.”

    Nothing happened, even with Al Sharpton on the case.

    But that was 1999, this is 2021. We’ll see if they can find 12 people with the guts of that jury.

    https://www.gothamgazette.com/criminal-justice/1615-lessons-and-legacy-of-amadou-diallo

  145. @Hibernian
    @Jack D

    The Neo-Confederate notion of the States as Sovereigns is subscribed to by Leftists, with exceptions such as Justice Ginsburg in this case, when it provides a rationalization for getting away with double jeopardy.

    Replies: @Federalist, @Huisache

    Neo-confederate? Read the US Constitution sometime.

  146. @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Arguably, Chauvin's actions did lead to Floyd's death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant - I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    Putting aside criminal law, from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it - for example they might decide that you are guilty of some crime. Once they make that decision their mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action. From the point that they have made their decision, they are no longer willing or capable of reacting to further inputs. I don't know what it is about police work or they type of people who are attracted to it that makes them reluctant to change their minds, but it's a real thing.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don't know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different and kept it up even after the ambulance had arrived. What may have started out as a reasonable restraint may at some point have become unreasonable when the circumstances changed but Chauvin kept doing the same thing and refused to react to these changes.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Art Deco, @Sean, @Dube, @Curmudgeon, @Mike Tre, @Anonymous

    You need to talk to cops who work in the black neighborhoods. Pretty much every negro that gets taken into custody has a story or an excuse or a “you ain’t gonna believe this shit” that they throw at the copper in an attempt to not be arrested.

    Floyd’s shtick was another boy crying wolf, as far as the arresting officers were concerned.

  147. @Anonymous

    As The New York Times recently reported, three days after Mr. Floyd died on May 25, Mr. Chauvin was ready to plead guilty to third-degree murder and go to prison for more than a decade.
     
    Why on earth would he plead guilty to third-degree murder for Floyd’s death, especially within three days of the incident? Is that report plausible?

    Replies: @Alfa158, @fish, @vhrm, @R.G. Camara

    The NYT repeatedly fabricates reports, or knowingly repeats fabricated information if it is politically useful. In this case they probably either made up the report or repeated something said by Ellison in an attempt to start biasing the jury pool.
    Modern journalists are taught that their sacred duty is to remake the universe as a better place BAMN. They aren’t interested in whether something is plausible, they just want to know if it is useful and if so, will their target audience swallow it.

    • Agree: R.G. Camara
    • Troll: Corvinus
  148. @JMcG
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Many years ago, while on a date, I came upon the scene of a smash and grab robbery in Center City Philadelphia. The young woman whose car had been robbed pointed out the guy who had done it. He was maybe 30 yards away, head down and walking away.
    Without even thinking about it, I ran after the guy, built up a head of steam, and put my shoulder right between his shoulder blades at full speed. He went flying and landed in a heap. Just as I was beginning to wonder what I was supposed to do next, he wordlessly handed the stolen bag over. He got up and walked away. He was well dressed, fit right in on an early spring evening in a nice part of town.
    I gave the bag back to the girl, who found nothing missing.
    The thief was black. Now, imagine if I’d been on a surveillance camera or cell phone camera. Just how miserable would my life have turned out if footage of (a much younger) me knocking down a black guy on a crowded sidewalk and taking a bag from him had been on the local news every half hour with the present Philly D.A. Deciding whether or not to charge me?
    There’s not a hope in hell I’d come to the aid of anyone not in my immediate circle of acquaintances any more. Really, it was foolish to have done it then. I was extremely lucky not to have been shot.

    Replies: @Flip, @Achmed E. Newman

    I know of a middle aged white guy who chased a black kid who stole the tips jar from a Starbucks and ended up getting run over by the kid and killed.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Flip

    I don’t doubt it. It was a stupid thing to do for a stranger’s bag. Never again.

  149. @Rob McX
    @Gordo


    Since 2003 however, when Bliar was PM, there has been no double jeopardy protection in the UK, very handy if the government is determined to get someone.
     
    Protection from double jeopardy was done away with because the powers that be were determined to have a second shot at the white defendants acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    “the powers that be were determined to have a second shot at the white defendants acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence”

    The lab (LGC) that made the “forensic breakthrough” (DNA amplification of a microscopic spot of Lawrence’s blood allegedly found on a defendant’s clothing) had only recently been privatised – I remember reading a report (can’t find it) on the lab in the Telegraph that was pretty much an advertorial.

    Might be this, it’s paywalled

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/9001164/How-being-a-private-company-has-helped-LGC-solve-the-murders-of-Stephen-Lawrence-and-Milly-Dowler.html

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/293439/Stephen-Lawrence-murder-The-smallest-ever-speck-of-blood-to-snare-a-killer

    The same lab has wrongfully convicted people

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-accused-adam-scott-was-victim-forensics-error-regulator-finds-8193163.html

    The trouble is that when things get politicised, or even when they don’t and you have corrupt staff, there’s a huge incentive for fraud/cheating/fabrication.

    https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/forensics-in-crisis/3009117.article

    Not that things were much better pre-privatisation. It’s been memoryholed, but hundreds if not thousands of convictions were overturned after a retired government scientist whose name I forget turned out to be pretty bad at his job.

    • Agree: Gordo
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Not that things were much better pre-privatisation. It’s been memoryholed, but hundreds if not thousands of convictions were overturned after a retired government scientist whose name I forget turned out to be pretty bad at his job.
     
    And in addition to that, there's downright fraud, as in the case of this subcon whose faking of lab test results resulted in the overturning of more than 20,000 convictions. These were drug cases, but it could just as easily happen with DNA as forensic science gets ever more diverse.
  150. @Anonymous

    As The New York Times recently reported, three days after Mr. Floyd died on May 25, Mr. Chauvin was ready to plead guilty to third-degree murder and go to prison for more than a decade.
     
    Why on earth would he plead guilty to third-degree murder for Floyd’s death, especially within three days of the incident? Is that report plausible?

    Replies: @Alfa158, @fish, @vhrm, @R.G. Camara

    Why on earth would he plead guilty to third-degree murder for Floyd’s death, especially within three days of the incident? Is that report plausible?

    He knows that he was to be fed to the mob. Maybe he gets a quiet year or two on the backside of the sentence if he cops to it!

  151. @Abe
    @Truth


    This is not double jeopardy, any more than the Browns suing OJ for “violation of civil rights.”
     
    You know, I would bet more than 50% of the people on here were against that too (to take one random example- me!).

    Replies: @Truth

    Honest Abe, believe me on this one: You are incorrect here.

    While it would make sense on a board of erstwhile “conservatives,” there are two critical facts to consider.

    OJ is Black.

    Nicole was White.

    The former was charged with having done violence to the latter, so If your cohorts could have thrown out the constitution and charged OJ under some 4,000 Cananite statute found buried under an olive tree in Iran, from the court of Ba’al, to get a conviction, it would have been done.

  152. @Anonymous

    As The New York Times recently reported, three days after Mr. Floyd died on May 25, Mr. Chauvin was ready to plead guilty to third-degree murder and go to prison for more than a decade.
     
    Why on earth would he plead guilty to third-degree murder for Floyd’s death, especially within three days of the incident? Is that report plausible?

    Replies: @Alfa158, @fish, @vhrm, @R.G. Camara

    Why on earth would he plead guilty to third-degree murder for Floyd’s death, especially within three days of the incident? Is that report plausible?

    idk any details about this deal, but possibly because they convinced him that he killed Floyd and threatened him with murder 1, under color of authority, etc. and told him they’d throw the book at him and he’d spend his life in solitary “for his protection” (or alternately that they’d throw him into the general population at a maximum security prison where his life expectancy would be what? weeks? months?)

    The racial angle of BLM is mostly BS, but there’s a lot about our law enforcement, judicial system, and penal systems that is pretty regressive…

  153. “This leak, which perhaps came from Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison’s office, was a pretty bad abuse of the Constitution’s promise of an “impartial jury”.

    So your speculation turns into “fact”, which turns into rinse and repeat of that “fact”, which becomes a talking point in your narrative. Got it.

    Regardless of your spin, potential jurors are quite aware of the case, especially with the potential that there could be a SEPARATE trial at the federal level for violation of his civil rights after the state trial for murder concludes regardless if there is a conviction or acquittal. Besides, I see how you are playing it here–cop gets acquitted, it was an impartial jury, and the cop is found guilty, it was not an impartial jury. Just like Trump–I win, no voter fraud, I lose, there was massive voter fraud.

    “By the way, it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died loaded with a potentially lethal level of fentanyl.”

    You are still not providing the entire context, Mr. Sailer. It would be accurate to say that his death was “caused by the police subdual and restraint in the setting of severe hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and methamphetamine, and fentanyl intoxication”. It would NOT be accurate for anyone to say the questionable police tactic played a limited or no role in the death.

    This is how you offer the complete picture, Mr. Sailer–By the way, it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breath, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl.

    “Now, yeah, sure, there are legalistic reasons for why trying an unpopular policeman first in state court, then overriding his acquittal with a trial for the exact same incident in federal court could be said, technically, not to be double jeopardy.”

    Damn those legalistic reasons, Mr. Sailor. That is called the rule of law, which I thought you were in support of. Again, there is no overriding his acquittal when there are two SEPARATE CHARGES. So, yes, technically, it matters. You just personally disagree with this turn of events, which is fine, but you are making it appear in your cagey way something legally nefarious is occurring…when it’s not.

    • Troll: Desiderius, Redman
    • Replies: @unit472
    @Corvinus

    Toxicology reports take time and that it took until 'June' for Floyd's to be revealed when the ex con died on May 25 is actually pretty fast. It took 6 weeks before we learned that Prince died from an OD of fentanyl. It took even longer to learn what killed Michael Jackson ( drug OD ). Same with Elvis Presley.

    The reason why is because other people have in interest in protecting the reputation or concealing the true nature of their client, relative or meal ticket.

  154. @ic1000
    @Jonathan Mason

    > From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.

    From what you can see. Well put.

    "One would need the history of Floyd’s drug use to put his 11 ng/mL (plus 5.6 ng/mL norfentanyl) in context, beyond saying, 'that would be enough to kill most people, but some very tolerant people could survive it.'"

    But of course that wasn't my point. It was this: In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin's legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers.

    When nearly all errors of commission and omission favor a particular narrative, is error the correct word?

    Replies: @Redman, @Calvin Hobbes, @Corvinus

    “In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin’s legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers.”

    Assuming the two individuals knew about that finding and neglected to present it, or made a conscious decision not to include that key finding that they knew. And, of course, you are assuming that most of the readers are not aware of that nugget. But perhaps it doesn’t bother you that Mr. Sailer has neglected to mention key facts or findings in his own reporting. I did provide him some advice to Urkel–By the way, it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breath, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl.

    Regardless, Mason’s point remains valid–“Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide”.

    • Troll: R.G. Camara, Redman
    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Corvinus


    Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide
     
    Citation needed, little Media Matters troll.

    And no, citing your masters isn't a valid citation, dear little hasbara.
    , @ic1000
    @Corvinus

    > Assuming the two individuals knew about that finding and neglected to present it, or made a conscious decision not to include that key finding that they knew.

    Grizzled Baghdad bureau chief and Pulitzer Prize winner don't measure up to the standards of random nobodies on the internet. We agree.

    > And, of course, you are assuming that most of the readers are not aware of that nugget.

    Correct. Wisely or not, most people rely on mainstream sources, or worse (Facebook).

    > But perhaps it doesn’t bother you that Mr. Sailer has neglected to mention key facts or findings in his own reporting. I did provide him some advice to Urkel

    "Urkel" was some clownish character on an old TV sitcom. You lost me.

    > it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breath, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl.

    ??

    > Regardless, Mason’s point remains valid–“Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide”.

    Does Mason's point cancel what I'd said? In case you'd forgotten, here's you quoting me: “In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin’s legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers.”

    C'mon, man.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  155. When the Midwit Begins to Notice:

    Can’t reason a man out of something he wasn’t reasoned into. But when the underlying incentives change…

  156. OT

    I ‘d put the over/under at three months until we are informed that surprisingly and suddenly Joe became unwell.

    • Replies: @Flip
    @Bernard

    I don't think he makes it until summer

  157. @Corvinus
    "This leak, which perhaps came from Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison’s office, was a pretty bad abuse of the Constitution’s promise of an “impartial jury".

    So your speculation turns into "fact", which turns into rinse and repeat of that "fact", which becomes a talking point in your narrative. Got it.

    Regardless of your spin, potential jurors are quite aware of the case, especially with the potential that there could be a SEPARATE trial at the federal level for violation of his civil rights after the state trial for murder concludes regardless if there is a conviction or acquittal. Besides, I see how you are playing it here--cop gets acquitted, it was an impartial jury, and the cop is found guilty, it was not an impartial jury. Just like Trump--I win, no voter fraud, I lose, there was massive voter fraud.

    "By the way, it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died loaded with a potentially lethal level of fentanyl."

    You are still not providing the entire context, Mr. Sailer. It would be accurate to say that his death was “caused by the police subdual and restraint in the setting of severe hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and methamphetamine, and fentanyl intoxication”. It would NOT be accurate for anyone to say the questionable police tactic played a limited or no role in the death.

    This is how you offer the complete picture, Mr. Sailer--By the way, it wasn't until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breath, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl.

    "Now, yeah, sure, there are legalistic reasons for why trying an unpopular policeman first in state court, then overriding his acquittal with a trial for the exact same incident in federal court could be said, technically, not to be double jeopardy."

    Damn those legalistic reasons, Mr. Sailor. That is called the rule of law, which I thought you were in support of. Again, there is no overriding his acquittal when there are two SEPARATE CHARGES. So, yes, technically, it matters. You just personally disagree with this turn of events, which is fine, but you are making it appear in your cagey way something legally nefarious is occurring...when it's not.

    Replies: @unit472

    Toxicology reports take time and that it took until ‘June’ for Floyd’s to be revealed when the ex con died on May 25 is actually pretty fast. It took 6 weeks before we learned that Prince died from an OD of fentanyl. It took even longer to learn what killed Michael Jackson ( drug OD ). Same with Elvis Presley.

    The reason why is because other people have in interest in protecting the reputation or concealing the true nature of their client, relative or meal ticket.

  158. @Philo of Alexandria
    The dual sovereignty doctrine holds that because the federal and state governments are distinct sovereigns, acts constituting offenses against state and federal law are not identical for purposes of double jeopardy. The reasoning for the doctrine is difficult to resist, and the Supreme Court recently rebuked a challenge to it on a 7-2 decision in Gamble v. United States (with Gorsuch and Ginsburg dissenting).

    It’s true that an unfortunate consequence of the doctrine is that it enables federal retrials after justified state acquittals. On the brighter side, it sometimes allows death penalty states to try criminals on capital charges after they’ve gotten life from another sovereign jurisdiction.

    Replies: @Jon, @Abolish_public_education

    What is this Dual Sovereignty baloney? It has to be just another ruse to provide more billable hours to lawyers.

    Let’s see. If Garland can’t convict Chauvin in #2, then the government can always try him at the International Criminal Court.

    After acquittal #3, the government can try him on the Moon for crimes against the solar system.

    Then the MW galaxy court, the intergalactic court, the multiverse court, and beyond.

    It’s just ridiculous.

    • Agree: Macumazahn
    • LOL: Abe
  159. Selective prosecution is one of the biggest abuses of justice in our nation.

  160. @Corvinus
    @ic1000

    "In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin’s legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers."

    Assuming the two individuals knew about that finding and neglected to present it, or made a conscious decision not to include that key finding that they knew. And, of course, you are assuming that most of the readers are not aware of that nugget. But perhaps it doesn't bother you that Mr. Sailer has neglected to mention key facts or findings in his own reporting. I did provide him some advice to Urkel--By the way, it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breath, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl.

    Regardless, Mason's point remains valid--"Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide".

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @ic1000

    Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide

    Citation needed, little Media Matters troll.

    And no, citing your masters isn’t a valid citation, dear little hasbara.

  161. Israel developed an apple picking drone:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/watch-flying-robo-harvest-picks-ripe-fruit-set-displace-jobs

    One of the many benefits to our military tech partnership will be our decreased demand for third world ag labor.

  162. @Anonymous

    As The New York Times recently reported, three days after Mr. Floyd died on May 25, Mr. Chauvin was ready to plead guilty to third-degree murder and go to prison for more than a decade.
     
    Why on earth would he plead guilty to third-degree murder for Floyd’s death, especially within three days of the incident? Is that report plausible?

    Replies: @Alfa158, @fish, @vhrm, @R.G. Camara

    You really should read the book “Three Felonies a Day.” It’s eye opening about how many innocent people will choose to plead guilty rather than face the exhausting, financially crippling, and media scrutiny of a trial, especially since prosecutors will seek far higher charges if you choose to fight than if you choose to plead.

    Yes, the book is about federal prosecutorial overreach, but state and county DAs are no slouches when it comes to the plead-guilty-now-or-face-life-in-prison.

    Given the massive negative publicity this guy got from the outset, pleading guilty to a lower offense would’ve been very strongly encouraged. Even if you could have found an impartial jury, they would’ve been under social pressure from family, friends, and strangers to find him guilty no matter what.

    Whenever you hear the phrase “plead guilty”, remind yourself that does not mean actually guilty.

  163. @Reg Cæsar
    https://lowres.cartooncollections.com/courts-courtrooms-trials-justice_system-laws-animals-CX303507_low.jpg

    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0065/4917/6438/products/a-lovely-kangaroo-and-railroad-crossing-background_740x.jpg?v=1535994171

    Replies: @Ahem

    Is the second toon funny? If so, why?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Ahem


    railroad (verb)

    Railroaded: Surviving Wrongful Convictions


    https://assets.change.org/photos/6/wx/dv/lNWxdvcpnVTTHIn-800x450-noPad.jpg?1509713408

  164. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Arguably, Chauvin’s actions did lead to Floyd’s death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out?

    Take off your lawyer hat and try thinking like a human being. (1) he wasn't face down, (2) he was complaining when he was bolt upright too, (3) had he and his chums left the scene 'ere the police arrived, he'd have expired anyway; (4) they'd called the ambulance and were waiting for it when he expired. The ambulance was later than they needed to be because they relied on a GPS which took them to the wrong location.

    Replies: @ganderson, @Lot, @Reg Cæsar

    “ Take off your lawyer hat ”

    Thank you.

    Jack D: this isn’t a time to carefully analyze what happened, but rather to show unquestioning solidarity with a law enforcement officer dealing with a gigantic home invading drug addict in the process of ODing, but charged with premeditated murder because of anti-white animus.

    People like Derek and Kyle R. need intelligent and articulate advocates who take their side as aggressively as their persecutors.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Lot


    Jack D: this isn’t a time to carefully analyze what happened, but rather to show unquestioning solidarity with a law enforcement officer
     
    Art, you just ran headlong into the JIDF, Unz Division.
    , @MBlanc46
    @Lot

    Well said, Lot. Comment of the thread, the day, the week.

    , @Anonymous
    @Lot


    Jack D: this isn’t a time to carefully analyze what happened, but rather to show unquestioning solidarity with a law enforcement officer dealing with a gigantic home invading drug addict in the process of ODing, but charged with premeditated murder because of anti-white animus.

    People like Derek and Kyle R. need intelligent and articulate advocates who take their side as aggressively as their persecutors.
     
    This is well put, and speaks well of your sense of justice, loyalty, and character. But it tends to give Jack D too much credit for “careful analysis.”

    If a suspect is able to speak, he is able to breath. Chauvin drew the reasonable inference that Floyd was faking the “I can’t breathe” complaints in order to try to avoid being taken in to jail. It’s a pretty typical gambit among inner city arrestees. The autopsy results corroborate the accuracy of that inference.

    Replies: @JMcG

  165. @Curmudgeon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I am not saying Simpson is innocent, but a retired judge told me that what most people don't recognize about Simpson's trial, was the vast amount of evidence, ruled inadmissible, that the public heard, but the jury didn't. He also said a huge flaw in the prosecution, from his perspective,was that the police saw Simpson as the one and only suspect. They essentially ignored all other possibilities, including the drug debt allegedly owed by Goldman.
    One of the secretaries in our office re-typed court transcripts for a local "wrongfully convicted" group. She was familiar with court jargon. She paid a great deal of attention to Simpson's case (I couldn't have cared less) and was convinced that there was reasonable doubt, given the very narrow window of opportunity. Reasonable doubt is another way of saying not proven, which does not mean not guilty.
    I came to the conclusion that the prosecution simply screwed up. If you can't conduct a proper chain of possession for blood evidence (LAPD) then your entire investigation becomes suspect. The "revenge" on Simpson was for exposing the clown show that passed as an investigation and prosecution, not for the verdict.
    Was he guilty? Probably, but that is only a guess. On the other hand, I have no sympathy for mud sharks, particularly when they jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
    As for his "armed robbery" If I remember correctly, the articles he went to retrieve were actually his, not the people who had them in their possession.
    For what it is worth, IMO Chauvin doesn't have a chance. It is impossible for him to have an impartial jury in Mini-no-place. It really wouldn't matter where the trial would be held. The well has been poisoned. If he chose to waive a jury trial, no judge would follow the law at the risk of losing office. He's doomed, no matter what the evidence is.

    Replies: @David In TN, @Reg Cæsar

    The jury heard a “vast amount of evidence” anyway. They ignored it. There was NO evidence of a “drug debt allegedly owed by Goldman.” What “other possibilities” were there? Why on earth would they not have charged Simpson?

    Oh, the prosecution certainly did “screw up.” They should have cut Mark Fuhrman out of the case, which the victims’ attorneys did in the wrongful death civil suit. Marcia Clark admitted in her book she should have “taken a writ” to the Cal Supreme Court when Lance Ito ruled the defense could claim (without providing evidence he did so) Fuhrman planted the glove. It was the only mistake Clark admitted.

    Yes, Nicole Brown was not a sympathetic victim, despite her horrible death. For black women on the jury, she was in life everything they hate. White men and women didn’t like her either.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @David In TN

    You are supposed to be punished for murder regardless of whether the jury likes the victim or not. Lots of murder victims are not sympathetic characters. Most of the people who get killed in LA are a million times less sympathetic than Nicole Simpson (not to mention Ron Goldman - what was his sin?) - drug dealers and such.

    The OJ verdict was 100% explainable by race (the jury's, not Nicole's). The DA screwed up royally when they tried the case downtown before a mostly black jury. What were they thinking?

    Replies: @black sea, @Polistra, @David In TN

  166. @Rob McX
    @Jack D

    But the choice facing the police was still the same - complete the arrest and take him to the station, or let him go. Floyd didn't want to be detained any longer.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Letting him go was not in the cards (though maybe letting him go with a ticket might have been appropriate – he had passed a counterfeit $20, not killed someone). If they couldn’t stuff the giant into the back of a squad car, the could have called for a paddy wagon. He was cuffed and wasn’t going anywhere in the meantime.

    • Replies: @unit472
    @Jack D

    Actually, the cops had called an ambulance and were waiting for them to arrive. They kept the crazy ex con prone on the pavement and waited for EMT to arrive to assess his condition.

    Replies: @Sean

    , @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    wasn’t going anywhere in the meantime

    No, he was actively fighting the cops, which is how he got kneed. Actively fighting cops is not the same thing as "not going anywhere."

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    If they couldn’t stuff the giant into the back of a squad car, they could have called for a paddy wagon.
     
    Begorrah! But all the Paddys are over in St Paul, misdirecting traffic.
  167. @Corvinus
    @ic1000

    "In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin’s legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers."

    Assuming the two individuals knew about that finding and neglected to present it, or made a conscious decision not to include that key finding that they knew. And, of course, you are assuming that most of the readers are not aware of that nugget. But perhaps it doesn't bother you that Mr. Sailer has neglected to mention key facts or findings in his own reporting. I did provide him some advice to Urkel--By the way, it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breath, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl.

    Regardless, Mason's point remains valid--"Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide".

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @ic1000

    > Assuming the two individuals knew about that finding and neglected to present it, or made a conscious decision not to include that key finding that they knew.

    Grizzled Baghdad bureau chief and Pulitzer Prize winner don’t measure up to the standards of random nobodies on the internet. We agree.

    > And, of course, you are assuming that most of the readers are not aware of that nugget.

    Correct. Wisely or not, most people rely on mainstream sources, or worse (Facebook).

    > But perhaps it doesn’t bother you that Mr. Sailer has neglected to mention key facts or findings in his own reporting. I did provide him some advice to Urkel

    “Urkel” was some clownish character on an old TV sitcom. You lost me.

    > it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breath, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl.

    ??

    > Regardless, Mason’s point remains valid–“Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide”.

    Does Mason’s point cancel what I’d said? In case you’d forgotten, here’s you quoting me: “In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin’s legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers.”

    C’mon, man.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @ic1000

    "Grizzled Baghdad bureau chief and Pulitzer Prize winner don’t measure up to the standards of random nobodies on the internet. We agree."

    I didn't agree. But thanks for the straw man and red herring all neatly rolled up into one.

    "Correct. Wisely or not, most people rely on mainstream sources, or worse (Facebook)."

    Most people read mainstream sources, compare what they read between those sources, and draw their own conclusions. Here is Ron Unz himself:


    I apply the same historical methods I did in my academic journal articles back in the 1980s. You analyze the likely reliability of the raw information presented, look for confirming or refuting evidence, and then draw your own plausible conclusions…On a more serious note, many of my articles very heavily cite various MSM sources, so why would I do that if I believed they were always lying?”
     
    " it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breathe, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl."

    There is no ?? on your part. The statement above is clear as day. Don't feign (Sailer) ignorance.

    The fact of the matter is that a jury will decide whether or not the officer's actions contributed to Floyd's death.

    Replies: @ic1000

  168. @David In TN
    @Curmudgeon

    The jury heard a "vast amount of evidence" anyway. They ignored it. There was NO evidence of a "drug debt allegedly owed by Goldman." What "other possibilities" were there? Why on earth would they not have charged Simpson?

    Oh, the prosecution certainly did "screw up." They should have cut Mark Fuhrman out of the case, which the victims' attorneys did in the wrongful death civil suit. Marcia Clark admitted in her book she should have "taken a writ" to the Cal Supreme Court when Lance Ito ruled the defense could claim (without providing evidence he did so) Fuhrman planted the glove. It was the only mistake Clark admitted.

    Yes, Nicole Brown was not a sympathetic victim, despite her horrible death. For black women on the jury, she was in life everything they hate. White men and women didn't like her either.

    Replies: @Jack D

    You are supposed to be punished for murder regardless of whether the jury likes the victim or not. Lots of murder victims are not sympathetic characters. Most of the people who get killed in LA are a million times less sympathetic than Nicole Simpson (not to mention Ron Goldman – what was his sin?) – drug dealers and such.

    The OJ verdict was 100% explainable by race (the jury’s, not Nicole’s). The DA screwed up royally when they tried the case downtown before a mostly black jury. What were they thinking?

    • Replies: @black sea
    @Jack D


    The DA screwed up royally when they tried the case downtown before a mostly black jury. What were they thinking?
     
    Marcia Clark believed that the black women on the jury would feel more solidarity with Nicole Brown as a female victim than with OJ as a black defendant. This proved not to be the case.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    , @Polistra
    @Jack D


    What were they thinking?
     
    Steve has at least one post & comment thread devoted to this very question, and the reasonable consensus is that Marcia Clark thought women on the jury would sympathize with a battered wife, when in fact (black) women on the jury were hell-bent on punishing the (incidentally dead) white chick for stealing one of their high-value (black) men.

    Yeah, black women blame the white women not the black men. Meanwhile, if Marcia Clark did indeed think this above (I didn't read her book) she's an idiot.

    OTOH, is it right to call someone an idiot if they're simply responding to mass-media-induced prejudices? Hmm, probably.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @S

    , @David In TN
    @Jack D

    I'm perfectly aware (a trial junkie since age 7) "you are supposed to be punished for murder regardless of whether the jury likes the victim or not." The main problem in this instance was a "sympathetic defendant," in spades if you pardon the expression.

    Most murder defendants in a place like Los Angeles are very unsympathetic characters. O.J. was anything but in 1994. Marcia Clark's last trial before Simpson was the Olive Street church shooting. The principals were all black, both victims and suspects. The killers were low-level street criminals. The victims were Church Ladies, as likable as you could find. The woman (who played the organ) who was the target wasn't even in church that night. The killers shot two women dead anyway. At one point, one of the defendants physically attacked his own lawyer, possibly hoping for a mistrial. Both killers were convicted and sentenced to death. They are still on death row, but will not be executed.

    O.J. Simpson as a defendant (and Nicole as a victim) couldn't have been more different.

    The DA at the time, Gil Garcetti (his son is now the Mayor) had the case tried downtown in order to pacify the black electorate. This was both for his reelection campaign and any other ambition he had. Garcetti told the press a guilty verdict before a jury filled with blacks would have more credibility. When criticism came his way, Garcetti then said the Santa Monica courthouse was damaged by the earthquake of a few months prior.

  169. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Likewise, much of the literal language of the Constitution, such as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, originally didn’t apply to states. Connecticut, for example, had a state religion, Congregationalism, into the 19th Century.
     
    I made this point before, but my historical knowledge was that Massachusetts and Rhode Island had established Congregationalist Churches. Was unaware that Connecticut had its own too.

    The Constitution is now interpreted to prohibit the government from appearing to endorse religion. It seems to me that endorsement is qualitatively quite different from establishment. I mean I've endorsed plenty of restaurants in my time, but have never established one.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Polistra, @G. Poulin

    That’s Massachusetts and Connecticut, and also, I believe, New Hampshire. Rhode Island never had an Established Church, due to the influence of Roger Williams. It was established by refugees from Puritan Massachusetts.

    • Replies: @Foreign Expert
    @Hibernian

    Massachusetts had a state religion up until about 1830. I read somewhere that the Massachusetts constitution still allows (or maybe requires) towns to have a town religion.

  170. @Federalist
    @Hibernian


    ...his possession of the handgun violated an Alabama law providing that violent felons could not own guns . Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law. The Court ruled 7-2 that this was OK. Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented.
     
    In the case Jack D cited, Ginsburg dissented from the ruling that the man could be prosecuted both by the State of Alabama and the United States. Presumably, in this case at least, Ginsburg did not subscribe to the notion of states as sovereign in order to thwart the prohibition against double jeopardy.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Please re-read my post. I said that Ginsberg was an exception to Leftists rationalizing double jeopardy. Thus her dissent, which you note above, from a decision authorizing double jeopardy by separate sovereigns.

    • Replies: @Federalist
    @Hibernian


    Please re-read my post. I said that Ginsberg was an exception to Leftists rationalizing double jeopardy.
     
    Mea culpa. You're right. I misread your post.
  171. In a healthy–non-minoritarian, non-confused–society, Floyd would have been executed or expelled after his home invasion robbery.

    Glad that piece of shit is dead. One less criminal thug making life worse for decent people.

    Unglad that our minoritarian elites were able to turn it into a giant anti-white dog-n’-pony.

    Clearly, we need to get rid of our cancerous “elites”.

    • Agree: Redman
  172. @Lot
    @Buzz Mohawk

    California does not require a lawyer and I have never heard of using one on a typical residential sale, even though many realtors “suggest” hiring one.

    However, sometimes people pay a lawyer $1000-2000 to help with and look over a FSBO transaction to avoid paying a real estate agent 2.5-5%, which on a typical $900,000 house is up to $45,000. (The “traditional” 6% is mostly dead here.)

    My understanding is that in the small number of states that require a lawyer, it is a pretty cheap, well under $1,000 if you shop around.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    For a condo, you need one.

  173. @Jack D
    @Rob McX

    Letting him go was not in the cards (though maybe letting him go with a ticket might have been appropriate - he had passed a counterfeit $20, not killed someone). If they couldn't stuff the giant into the back of a squad car, the could have called for a paddy wagon. He was cuffed and wasn't going anywhere in the meantime.

    Replies: @unit472, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar

    Actually, the cops had called an ambulance and were waiting for them to arrive. They kept the crazy ex con prone on the pavement and waited for EMT to arrive to assess his condition.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @unit472

    Floyd was handcuffed by Lane, but when Floyd being put in the police vehicle he deliberately fell. Then Chauvin arrived and there was another attempt to get him in the car, but Floyd ended up on the ground again. That is when Chauvin and the others started pinning Floyd and the phone video starts. The entire time that Chauvin was there, Floyd was handcuffed, but Chauvin decided to use a technique (maximal restraint) that is only authorized to be used while putting the handcuffs on an arrestee, which is not something that needed to be done with the already-handcuffed Floyd. Prosecutors will say the only reasonable explanation for Chauvin's use of the technique is he was deliberately punishing Floyd, and given the extremely sustained way he was using the technique it qualifies as a clear cut assault. In quirky Minnesota, felony murder charges can be brought on the basis of an assault of the deceased.

  174. @Percy Gryce
    @Percy Gryce

    Also there's a new front in WWT:

    https://twitter.com/percy_gryce/status/1364442224776384514?s=20

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Stan Adams, @Reg Cæsar

    And Sally became hairy.

    [MORE]

  175. Johnnie Cochran would say: If the arresting cop did on the perp sit, you must convict.

    Justice is so much simpler these days.

  176. @Art Deco
    @Jonathan Mason

    From what I can see the autopsy report said that he had Fentantyl in his body, but nothing about a potentially lethal dose.



    The level of fentanyl in his femoral blood was 11.3 nanograms per cc. That's a middle-of-the-road value for an overdose death. (I did a meatball literature review). He was complaining about his breathing when he was upright and before he was placed on the sidewalk. His trachea and his neck muscles were uninjured. One of the effects of high doses of fentanyl is that your lungs fill with fluid.

    Replies: @Jack D, @gcochran

    I took fentanyl during a medical procedure: kept forgetting to breathe.

  177. @Barnard
    @Art Deco

    Agreed. I can't see a scenario where a jury of Ilhan Omar voters gives him an acquittal even though he is absurdly overcharged. A few the Noor jurors expressed reluctance to convict him afterwords because he was a Somali. The Freddy Gray cops in Baltimore had success with requesting a trial by judge, but I don't know if that would work for Chauvin in this case.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    What are you agreeing on? AD seems to be saying that he’ll escape conviction.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    @Paperback Writer

    My reading of his comment is that we are both expecting a hung jury in the event of a jury trial.

  178. Generally, good men join the police to protect their communities. They see themselves as the sheep dogs protecting the sheep (the public) from the wolves (Biden voters).

    The same sorts of men join the military. Kurt Schlichter wrote an essay strongly recommending such men not join the military because of the SJW-corruption of that institution. The same could be said of the big city police forces.

    Let’s let the Democrat party freaks join the big city police forces and the military. I’m sure faux women, actual women and gay men will do a wonderful job.

  179. @Anonymous
    OT:

    Two French bulldogs belonging to the pop star known as 'Lady Gaga' were stolen in an armed robbery, on the streets of LA, in which the hired dog walker was shot, severally times in the chest, without warning by a group of black men. Dog walker in 'grave' condition. News sources generally ignoring the dog walker and gushing over the dogs - how typical LA.

    High price breed dogs - which are readily saleable for much profit - like iPhones have become just another very robbery prone consumer accessory.

    Replies: @Wade Hampton

    One of my favorite books is Jaroslav Hasek’s “The Good Soldier Schweik”. The novel is set during the Great War. The eponymous Schweik is a sophisticated Praguer who holds the ruling Germans in contempt and feigns idiocy to got out of hard and dangerous military service.

    His job before being drafted is stealing dogs, having them surgically modified where necessary and reselling them as purebreds.

    Of course, the Great War was the occasion of the collapse of a great civilization. I am sure there is no historical parallel to Lady Gaga’s dog-thieves at all.

    A brief quote below…

    [MORE]

    ‘So they’ve killed Ferdinand,’ said the charwoman to Mr Schweik who, having left the army many years before, when a military medical board had declared him to be chronically feeble-minded, earned a livelihood by the sale of dogs – repulsive mongrel monstrosities for whom he forged pedigrees. Apart from this occupation, he was afflicted with rheumatism, and was just rubbing his knees with embrocation.

    ‘Which Ferdinand, Mrs Müller?’ asked Schweik, continuing to massage his knees. ‘I know two Ferdinands. One of them does jobs for Prusa the chemist, and one day he drank a bottle of hair oil by mistake; and then there’s Ferdinand Kokoska who goes round collecting manure. They wouldn’t be any great loss, either of ‘em.’

    ‘No, it’s the Archduke Ferdinand, the one from Konopiste, you know Mr Schweik, the fat, pious one.’

    ‘Good Lord!’ exclaimed Schweik, ‘that’s a fine thing. And where did this happen?’…”

  180. @Hypnotoad666
    @Lurker


    So which is it left or fascist?
     
    Not mutually exclusive. Italian Fascism and German Nazism were both explicitly socialist.

    Replies: @Roderick Spode

    Yes, but they were Right-Socialist.

    Surely you have encountered the “political compass” meme at some point.

  181. @wren
    OT: If no one mentioned this:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9297475/Black-student-not-victim-racism-eating-black-80k-Smith-College.html

    The whole brouhaha started with a hoax.

    Replies: @wren, @Achmed E. Newman

    Oops. That was mentioned.

  182. @Calvin Hobbes
    We’re frequently reminded by the NYT about the horrible murder of Emmett Till.

    Derick Chauvin is almost certainly a completely innocent man who was just trying to do his job, with zero intent to harm George Floyd. The knee-on-the-neck restraint technique was taught by the Minneapolis PD, and Minneapolis cops were also taught about “excited delirium” in people overdosing on drugs, which Chauvin mentioned while trying to restrain Floyd.

    The left in America (including the NYT) is engaging in the slow-motion murder of Chauvin. The NYT is not a whit better than those guys who killed Emmett Till.

    Replies: @Polistra

    The NYT is not a whit better than those guys who killed Emmett Till.

    The NYT is millions of times worse, because of their level of influence.

    This is likely to be a hideous miscarriage of justice, but it’s almost trivial in comparison with the colossal crimes to which the NYT has been a party over many decades.

    In fact, I generally have trouble identifying a more consistently malevolent player the in public realm. And it’s not accidental. None of it is accidental.

    • Agree: Calvin Hobbes
  183. @Curmudgeon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I am not saying Simpson is innocent, but a retired judge told me that what most people don't recognize about Simpson's trial, was the vast amount of evidence, ruled inadmissible, that the public heard, but the jury didn't. He also said a huge flaw in the prosecution, from his perspective,was that the police saw Simpson as the one and only suspect. They essentially ignored all other possibilities, including the drug debt allegedly owed by Goldman.
    One of the secretaries in our office re-typed court transcripts for a local "wrongfully convicted" group. She was familiar with court jargon. She paid a great deal of attention to Simpson's case (I couldn't have cared less) and was convinced that there was reasonable doubt, given the very narrow window of opportunity. Reasonable doubt is another way of saying not proven, which does not mean not guilty.
    I came to the conclusion that the prosecution simply screwed up. If you can't conduct a proper chain of possession for blood evidence (LAPD) then your entire investigation becomes suspect. The "revenge" on Simpson was for exposing the clown show that passed as an investigation and prosecution, not for the verdict.
    Was he guilty? Probably, but that is only a guess. On the other hand, I have no sympathy for mud sharks, particularly when they jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
    As for his "armed robbery" If I remember correctly, the articles he went to retrieve were actually his, not the people who had them in their possession.
    For what it is worth, IMO Chauvin doesn't have a chance. It is impossible for him to have an impartial jury in Mini-no-place. It really wouldn't matter where the trial would be held. The well has been poisoned. If he chose to waive a jury trial, no judge would follow the law at the risk of losing office. He's doomed, no matter what the evidence is.

    Replies: @David In TN, @Reg Cæsar

    On the other hand, I have no sympathy for mud sharks…


    Dictionary.com
    has no sympathy for those who use that term:

    WHAT DOES MUD SHARK MEAN?

    Warning: This article features information about a racial slur that is highly offensive and that should not be used … ever.

    https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/mud-shark/

    That rabbit hole led to the “Alabama Hot Pocket”. Just what did the poor Yellowhammer State do to merit the indignity of that title? Or is Mobile Bay really that polluted?

    Assuming this is even real. Notably, it’s the flip side of “Fake News”.

  184. @Percy Gryce
    Steve, I realize there's too much iSteve content to keep up with, but NYT has unmasked a hate hoax:

    https://twitter.com/powellnyt/status/1364676518836903939?s=20

    Replies: @Percy Gryce, @Tono Bungay, @Ripple Earthdevil, @Polistra, @PiltdownMan

  185. @Redneck farmer
    @Hypnotoad666

    "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, are you going to follow the law, or you going to prevent race riots"?

    Replies: @John Johnson, @PiltdownMan

  186. Lawyers have been at the forefront of all this woke insanity. It is time to stop pretending that they are lawyers. They are activists in another captured institution.

  187. @Jack D
    @Rob McX

    Letting him go was not in the cards (though maybe letting him go with a ticket might have been appropriate - he had passed a counterfeit $20, not killed someone). If they couldn't stuff the giant into the back of a squad car, the could have called for a paddy wagon. He was cuffed and wasn't going anywhere in the meantime.

    Replies: @unit472, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar

    wasn’t going anywhere in the meantime

    No, he was actively fighting the cops, which is how he got kneed. Actively fighting cops is not the same thing as “not going anywhere.”

  188. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jonathan Mason

    You will note that I clicked the "Agree" button for you, but you must also know that OJ Simpson is probably not the best example you could have used. You used him because he is famous.

    Yep, famous, all right. A famous example of jury nullification.

    He received a maximum-type penalty for the latter crime, but it was within sentencing guidelines. Practically everyone of reason understood why and was happy about it.

    Again, you need to find a better example.

    You left out the civil case for the deaths, which he lost to the tune of millions of dollars -- essentially bankrupting him if he wasn't already bankrupt from previous legal fees. (Gotta love the lawyer business! Save your client and then take everything he owns from him.)

    Pick another example. Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Curmudgeon, @Macumazahn, @Anon

    Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead.

    Agree 100% But… once he beat that rap, it was clearly simple justice-system vengeance to trump up the charges against him for that memorabilia dispute. “We finally got the sumbitch” isn’t the sort of justice we should have in America – especially when the original acquittal was the direct result of crap-for-brains incompetence on the part of the prosecutors, and a biased judge on the bench. Lance Ito allowed the proceeding to become a trial of Mark Fuhrman’s alleged racism, and Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden were, quite simply, imbeciles. The glove fiasco made it all-too-easy for the jury to do what they wanted to do and let the famous affleet walk free. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything so stupid transpire in open court.
    25 years later, how many people even remember that among OJ’s “dream team” of defense attorneys was one Robert Kardashian? Truly a gift that keeps on giving, just like herpes.

  189. This won’t help Chauvin, but it’s a way forward.

    The Police must stop entering those neighborhoods; let them descend into chaos and violence.
    Let the violence spill over into the gentrified white and asian liberal neighborhoods. Do not protect businesses unless they have prominent sign in the window, saying “We support the Police”.
    When you get the radio dispatch, stay in your patrol car, reading the Sports page; stay at Dunkin Donuts and have another coffee. Relax, no point risking your life and liberty to protect people that loathe you. Your conscience is clear. Your job–when you get to the scene an hour later– is to cover the bodies with a tarp, and wait for the Coroner van to pick up the stiffs. Quickly ask those around if there were any witnesses, and after they shake their heads no, leave quickly.

    Make them publicly beg for your return. Make them bow down before you and kiss your feet.
    To the Police: You hold all the cards. You have the power. Use it, damn it.

    (Readers please note: the above is intended as provocative satire to merely stimulate socially responsible discussion, and should not be taken literally or seriously, nor is it meant to belittle any group. Re-elect Biden/Harris 2024 )

  190. @Hibernian
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    That's Massachusetts and Connecticut, and also, I believe, New Hampshire. Rhode Island never had an Established Church, due to the influence of Roger Williams. It was established by refugees from Puritan Massachusetts.

    Replies: @Foreign Expert

    Massachusetts had a state religion up until about 1830. I read somewhere that the Massachusetts constitution still allows (or maybe requires) towns to have a town religion.

  191. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Likewise, much of the literal language of the Constitution, such as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, originally didn’t apply to states. Connecticut, for example, had a state religion, Congregationalism, into the 19th Century.
     
    I made this point before, but my historical knowledge was that Massachusetts and Rhode Island had established Congregationalist Churches. Was unaware that Connecticut had its own too.

    The Constitution is now interpreted to prohibit the government from appearing to endorse religion. It seems to me that endorsement is qualitatively quite different from establishment. I mean I've endorsed plenty of restaurants in my time, but have never established one.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Polistra, @G. Poulin

    I’ve endorsed plenty of restaurants in my time, but have never established one.

    Come on now. That’s not what the Establishment Clause is about. It’s about the fact that government is not permitted to make any law respecting a religious establishment. It has long (and reasonably) been held to indicate that government may not establish its own religion as well, and the language is clear enough in that regard. But the essence of it is that government can’t distinguish among and between religions.

    I’d personally go further and say that this means the government can’t grant tax-free status to religious organizations–particularly since in the process it most definitely decides what is a legitimate religion (say, the Catholic Church) and what isn’t (Polistrarians for example, which has been held up as nothing more than an attempted tax dodge. Can you imagine?).

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Polistra


    Come on now. That’s not what the Establishment Clause is about. It’s about the fact that government is not permitted to make any law respecting a religious establishment. It has long (and reasonably) been held to indicate that government may not establish its own religion as well, and the language is clear enough in that regard. But the essence of it is that government can’t distinguish among and between religions.

    I’d personally go further and say that this means the government can’t grant tax-free status to religious organizations–particularly since in the process it most definitely decides what is a legitimate religion (say, the Catholic Church) and what isn’t (Polistrarians for example, which has been held up as nothing more than an attempted tax dodge. Can you imagine?).
     
    No, this is neoliberal claptrap. Did you even read Steve's comment about Connecticut and mine about the established religions of Massachusetts and Rhode Island?

    It meant that there would be no "Church of the United States" for which the head of State would be the titular head as with the Church of England. It did not mean that government had to treat jokes the same as actual bona fide religions.

    Also, Churches have never been taxed by the United States government. It has been long held since the early Republic that it would constitute a burden on religion. You'd "argue" something both ahistorical and silly, and based in postmodern nonsense that no Founder would recognize.

    Replies: @Polistra

  192. @Lot
    @Art Deco

    “ Take off your lawyer hat ”

    Thank you.

    Jack D: this isn’t a time to carefully analyze what happened, but rather to show unquestioning solidarity with a law enforcement officer dealing with a gigantic home invading drug addict in the process of ODing, but charged with premeditated murder because of anti-white animus.

    People like Derek and Kyle R. need intelligent and articulate advocates who take their side as aggressively as their persecutors.

    Replies: @Polistra, @MBlanc46, @Anonymous

    Jack D: this isn’t a time to carefully analyze what happened, but rather to show unquestioning solidarity with a law enforcement officer

    Art, you just ran headlong into the JIDF, Unz Division.

  193. @ic1000
    @Corvinus

    > Assuming the two individuals knew about that finding and neglected to present it, or made a conscious decision not to include that key finding that they knew.

    Grizzled Baghdad bureau chief and Pulitzer Prize winner don't measure up to the standards of random nobodies on the internet. We agree.

    > And, of course, you are assuming that most of the readers are not aware of that nugget.

    Correct. Wisely or not, most people rely on mainstream sources, or worse (Facebook).

    > But perhaps it doesn’t bother you that Mr. Sailer has neglected to mention key facts or findings in his own reporting. I did provide him some advice to Urkel

    "Urkel" was some clownish character on an old TV sitcom. You lost me.

    > it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breath, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl.

    ??

    > Regardless, Mason’s point remains valid–“Anyway even if he would have died the same day from natural causes, if the actions of the police hastened his demise, then it was still a homicide”.

    Does Mason's point cancel what I'd said? In case you'd forgotten, here's you quoting me: “In a lengthy deep-dive into Chauvin’s legal proceedings, two experienced reporters failed to mention a key finding of fact that is unknown to most of their readers.”

    C'mon, man.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Grizzled Baghdad bureau chief and Pulitzer Prize winner don’t measure up to the standards of random nobodies on the internet. We agree.”

    I didn’t agree. But thanks for the straw man and red herring all neatly rolled up into one.

    “Correct. Wisely or not, most people rely on mainstream sources, or worse (Facebook).”

    Most people read mainstream sources, compare what they read between those sources, and draw their own conclusions. Here is Ron Unz himself:

    I apply the same historical methods I did in my academic journal articles back in the 1980s. You analyze the likely reliability of the raw information presented, look for confirming or refuting evidence, and then draw your own plausible conclusions…On a more serious note, many of my articles very heavily cite various MSM sources, so why would I do that if I believed they were always lying?”

    ” it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breathe, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl.”

    There is no ?? on your part. The statement above is clear as day. Don’t feign (Sailer) ignorance.

    The fact of the matter is that a jury will decide whether or not the officer’s actions contributed to Floyd’s death.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    @Corvinus

    > I didn’t agree. But thanks for the straw man and red herring all neatly rolled up into one.

    Neither man nor herring. Seemed too obvious to need a [/sarc] tag.

    Other commenters have brought up important points, some favoring Chauvin's defense and others not. But your contribution to this thread is nothing to crow about. As a smart and knowledgeable defender of the Establishment, you can do better.

  194. @unit472
    @Jack D

    Actually, the cops had called an ambulance and were waiting for them to arrive. They kept the crazy ex con prone on the pavement and waited for EMT to arrive to assess his condition.

    Replies: @Sean

    Floyd was handcuffed by Lane, but when Floyd being put in the police vehicle he deliberately fell. Then Chauvin arrived and there was another attempt to get him in the car, but Floyd ended up on the ground again. That is when Chauvin and the others started pinning Floyd and the phone video starts. The entire time that Chauvin was there, Floyd was handcuffed, but Chauvin decided to use a technique (maximal restraint) that is only authorized to be used while putting the handcuffs on an arrestee, which is not something that needed to be done with the already-handcuffed Floyd. Prosecutors will say the only reasonable explanation for Chauvin’s use of the technique is he was deliberately punishing Floyd, and given the extremely sustained way he was using the technique it qualifies as a clear cut assault. In quirky Minnesota, felony murder charges can be brought on the basis of an assault of the deceased.

  195. @Flemur
    Lileks mentions a lot of anti-citizen barriers going up around gummint buildings in Minneapolis; I wonder if those are somehow connected to the double-jeopardy double-dealings.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Lileks mentions a lot of anti-citizen barriers going up around gummint buildings in Minneapolis; I wonder if those are somehow connected to the double-jeopardy double-dealings.

    Does Likeks think Chauvin is innocent?

    • Replies: @duncsbaby
    @Anonymous


    Does Likeks think Chauvin is innocent?
     
    My guess is Lileks secretly thinks Chauvin is innocent but he lives in Minneapolis and is employed by the very liberal Star Tribune so he's smart enough to not opine on Chauvin's innocence. I'm sure he's convinced himself of the ultimate wisdom of this. He lives on a public street that would be instantly filled w/BLM-Antifa protesters if he expressed any public doubts about Chauvin's guilt. Lileks is very good at recording the feel of a town gutted by riots and covid-19 hysteria and opines on the subsequent degradations of daily life. He ain't gonna wade into the hottest political story in recent Minneapolis history. In fairness that ain't his beat anyway.
  196. Anonymous[384] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    I think a big issue is in manyof these police cases is the danger of suffocation when you restrain someone, espcially if they are obese or drugged up or otherwise in bad health.

    This is how Eric Garner died. He was alive on the ground, but he was obese, face down and was having an asthma attack.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/opinion/eric-garner-daniel-pantaleo-and-lethal-police-tactics.html

    This is how George Floyd died. The autopsies (two of them) made it clear that the knee was a "Covington kid" visual, but what killed him was the combination of three or four officers restraining his breathing and chest and diaphragm (been there myself, caught in a crowd at a festival, pushed in from all sides, very panic inducing).

    This is how this recent guy in the news, Daniel Prude, died.

    Police don't have training in getting the guy upright as quickly as possible, although Floyd was resisting and huge and strong and had already escaped, so even four cops were having problems.


    As early as 1995, a Department of Justice bulletin on “positional asphyxia” quoted the New York Police Department’s guidelines on preventing deaths in custody. “As soon as the subject is handcuffed, get him off his stomach. Turn him on his side or place him in a seated position.”

    As Michael Baden, a former chief medical examiner of New York City, told The Times: “Obese people especially, lying face down, prone, are unable to breathe when enough pressure is put on their back. The pressure prevents the diaphragm from going up and down, and he can’t inhale and exhale.
     

    Floyd was on his side, but crushed against the car, and doped up.

    It's too bad that the frenzy around these cases obscures this one concrete piece of training that could keep suspects alive. But no, the officer has to be demonized and destroyed.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Art Deco

    As early as 1995, a Department of Justice bulletin on “positional asphyxia” quoted the New York Police Department’s guidelines on preventing deaths in custody. “As soon as the subject is handcuffed, get him off his stomach. Turn him on his side or place him in a seated position.”

    More like, “It wasn’t until the mid-1990s…”

    Floyd was on his side, but crushed against the car, and doped up.

    Floyd wasn’t crushed against the car.

  197. @Ahem
    @Reg Cæsar

    Is the second toon funny? If so, why?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  198. @Tono Bungay
    @Percy Gryce

    I didn't read the whole NYT story about the Smith College brouhaha, but I was surprised by what I did read, in that it really did give both sides of the story, something I'd thought the Times was no longer capable of. But it is still astonishing how wacky and ideology-addled these university administrators are!

    Replies: @Ragno, @additionalMike

    The only, and I mean ONLY, reason the Times coverage appears “fair” is that Smith Collège is already squarely in the eye of another double-standards firestorm (Google ‘Jodi Shaw’ …..wait, make that DuckDuckGo instead).

  199. What i want to know: where’s the indictment of Jacob Frey?

    Correct me if i’m wrong, but didn’t the Minneapolis police, bring in some Israelis to pickup the latest oppression tactics, like the neck kneel? And then–pretty sure this is the case–make this part of their approved MPD suspect restraint tactics?

    I realize the “just following orders” defense isn’t going to get Chauvin off. But when you’re looking to string up a guy who was “just following orders”, then it follows you are supposed to be stringing up the people who gave the orders.

    This Jewish Antifa lover Frey had been mayor didn’t just have this dumped on him. He’d been mayor for a couple, three years. If he had a problem with MPD’s behavior or tactics–he can change them. He’s in charge. MPD’s policies … are by definition Jacob Frey’s polices. He own’s them.

    And it seems clear Frey’s policies included the MPD going out and arresting black guys. Even when the black guy did not want to be arrested.

    In other words he wants protection for his comfy life, his comfy wife. But then when the shit hits the fan …. oh, it’s those damn racist gentiles out there persecuting blacks. F.U. asshole.

    Again, Jacob Frey is the responsible public official. And again:

    Jacob Frey’s policy was for the MPD to arrest black criminals even when they did not want to be arrested.

    Why isn’t he in jail?

  200. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Rob McX

    "the powers that be were determined to have a second shot at the white defendants acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence"

    The lab (LGC) that made the "forensic breakthrough" (DNA amplification of a microscopic spot of Lawrence's blood allegedly found on a defendant's clothing) had only recently been privatised - I remember reading a report (can't find it) on the lab in the Telegraph that was pretty much an advertorial.

    Might be this, it's paywalled

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/9001164/How-being-a-private-company-has-helped-LGC-solve-the-murders-of-Stephen-Lawrence-and-Milly-Dowler.html

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/293439/Stephen-Lawrence-murder-The-smallest-ever-speck-of-blood-to-snare-a-killer

    The same lab has wrongfully convicted people

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-accused-adam-scott-was-victim-forensics-error-regulator-finds-8193163.html

    The trouble is that when things get politicised, or even when they don't and you have corrupt staff, there's a huge incentive for fraud/cheating/fabrication.

    https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/forensics-in-crisis/3009117.article


    Not that things were much better pre-privatisation. It's been memoryholed, but hundreds if not thousands of convictions were overturned after a retired government scientist whose name I forget turned out to be pretty bad at his job.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    Not that things were much better pre-privatisation. It’s been memoryholed, but hundreds if not thousands of convictions were overturned after a retired government scientist whose name I forget turned out to be pretty bad at his job.

    And in addition to that, there’s downright fraud, as in the case of this subcon whose faking of lab test results resulted in the overturning of more than 20,000 convictions. These were drug cases, but it could just as easily happen with DNA as forensic science gets ever more diverse.

  201. Mr Chauvin’s fate was sealed on November 3*. There is no way that the Dems will let him walk

    * Or whenever it was that the steal was finalized..

  202. @Sean
    @Jack D

    While a lot of what you say is true, Floyd dying changed everything, If someone happens to expire while you are doing something illegal to them, even if it's only technically illegal and quite commonly done without causing problems, you are up the proverbial creek. Chauvin did not deserve to get away with what he did, which included ignoring multiple colleagues.

    Chauvin arrived on the scene after Floyd was handcuffed, and so Floyd was already handcuffed when the bystander phone video starts. What was being done at that point had nothing to do with the authorized transient use of the restraint technique for getting the cuffs on a resisting arrestee. Chauvin initiated and sustained the use of the technique by way of a physical punishment of Floyd for his previous passive aggressive resisting of arrest.

    Though often observed in the breach, police officers are certainly aware they not allowed to use punitive force; what Chauvin did on the phone video was technically an assault from the very begining, and the risks increased with every second until Floyd up and died on Chauvin. So Chauvin was very reckless and he's paying the price of foolhardiness.

    Replies: @Jack D, @vhrm, @Macumazahn, @Art Deco

    Am I the only one who thinks that Chauvin might have relented if he were not being subjected to endless ook-ook invective from the bystanders? If Officer Chauvin was indeed thinking “F-you,” his thoughtcrime was directed at the screaming piece-of-crap videographers, not at Saint George. Chauvin thought it was just another day of dealing with the worthless two-legged feces of the ghetto streets. Little did he know that America now canonizes violent junkie retard felons – if they’re negroes.
    Chauvin should get a commendation, not a trial.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Macumazahn

    Before the double murder that got him 30 years in prison, the NYPD's Bill Phillips did in fact get a commendation for shooting dead a black, who supposedly attacked him with a knife and cut his finger. The usual procedure seems to have for cops to carry a knife as a throwdown.

    https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/files/large/8e0ec93cbb7111fbeabfea6123b61360b6345889.jpg


    Former Detroit police officer Raymond Peterson, a member of the controversial STRESS (Stop the Robberies Enjoy Safe Streets) Unit, was awarded two years back pay and a possible disability pension by an arbitration board recently.

    Peterson, 40, was involved in 12 STRESS-related shootings, which resulted in the deaths of five persons. Peterson was acquitted in 1974 of second degree murder in the March 1973 shooting of Robert Hoyt. The police trial board upheld Peterson's firing after it was found that he planted his own knife on Hoyt and then lied about it. [...]

    The testimony of Sgt. Mary Jarrett of the police crime laboratory in that trial established the fact that the knife on Hoyt had been in the pocket of Peterson. Apparently her testimony paled in comparison to the crucial and perhaps pivotal testimony of psychiatrist Bruce Danto, who said Peterson was "a very frightened man who responded to the real threat in terms of his life on the basis of a conditioned fear which produced a dissociative state."
     

    Re what drove Chauvin to flush his life down the toilet: this might seem strange, but I think the fact he was being filmed had something to do with the way he acted, I really do.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Anonymous

  203. @Jack D
    @David In TN

    You are supposed to be punished for murder regardless of whether the jury likes the victim or not. Lots of murder victims are not sympathetic characters. Most of the people who get killed in LA are a million times less sympathetic than Nicole Simpson (not to mention Ron Goldman - what was his sin?) - drug dealers and such.

    The OJ verdict was 100% explainable by race (the jury's, not Nicole's). The DA screwed up royally when they tried the case downtown before a mostly black jury. What were they thinking?

    Replies: @black sea, @Polistra, @David In TN

    The DA screwed up royally when they tried the case downtown before a mostly black jury. What were they thinking?

    Marcia Clark believed that the black women on the jury would feel more solidarity with Nicole Brown as a female victim than with OJ as a black defendant. This proved not to be the case.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @black sea


    This proved not to be the case.
     
    Understatement of the day. It just shows how deluded Clark was about female solidarity. Race trumps everything.

    Replies: @Flip

  204. OT:

    Twitter will allow users to charge followers to see premium posts.

    Super Follows will allow select users such as celebrities to charge for content.

    This is the future. Thought criminals deleted, while idiots pay to see what Kim Kardashian has to say.

  205. @black sea
    @Jack D


    The DA screwed up royally when they tried the case downtown before a mostly black jury. What were they thinking?
     
    Marcia Clark believed that the black women on the jury would feel more solidarity with Nicole Brown as a female victim than with OJ as a black defendant. This proved not to be the case.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    This proved not to be the case.

    Understatement of the day. It just shows how deluded Clark was about female solidarity. Race trumps everything.

    • Agree: Gordo
    • Replies: @Flip
    @Rob McX


    Race trumps everything.
     
    Among everyone except pathologically altruistic Northwestern Europeans.
  206. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wilkey

    You make a good point about the cost of Simpson's murder defense, but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.

    That very real chance is also used in lawfare to intimidate and destroy good people -- and to control populations.

    If your pipes break, it's perhaps a few hundred or thousands of dollars of plumbing work -- which, by the way, a damn lawyer couldn't do if his shitty life depended on it.

    If you get sued or charged, it's possibly your life savings or a second mortgage to pay into what we all know is partially a rent-seeking profession.

    A rent-seeking profession.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work:

    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/vultures-eat-carrion-two-ribs-meat-61426765.jpg

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Jonathan Mason, @scrivener3, @BBerliner, @Polistra, @MBlanc46

    Buzz, vultures serve a useful function in nature. Comparing them to lawyers is an insult to vultures.

  207. @Bernard
    OT

    I ‘d put the over/under at three months until we are informed that surprisingly and suddenly Joe became unwell.

    https://twitter.com/Dee_5_Jay/status/1364582655061356546

    Replies: @Flip

    I don’t think he makes it until summer

  208. @Rob McX
    @black sea


    This proved not to be the case.
     
    Understatement of the day. It just shows how deluded Clark was about female solidarity. Race trumps everything.

    Replies: @Flip

    Race trumps everything.

    Among everyone except pathologically altruistic Northwestern Europeans.

    • Agree: Rob McX, Johnny Smoggins
  209. @Lot
    @Art Deco

    “ Take off your lawyer hat ”

    Thank you.

    Jack D: this isn’t a time to carefully analyze what happened, but rather to show unquestioning solidarity with a law enforcement officer dealing with a gigantic home invading drug addict in the process of ODing, but charged with premeditated murder because of anti-white animus.

    People like Derek and Kyle R. need intelligent and articulate advocates who take their side as aggressively as their persecutors.

    Replies: @Polistra, @MBlanc46, @Anonymous

    Well said, Lot. Comment of the thread, the day, the week.

    • Thanks: Lot
  210. @Jack D
    @Rob McX

    Letting him go was not in the cards (though maybe letting him go with a ticket might have been appropriate - he had passed a counterfeit $20, not killed someone). If they couldn't stuff the giant into the back of a squad car, the could have called for a paddy wagon. He was cuffed and wasn't going anywhere in the meantime.

    Replies: @unit472, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar

    If they couldn’t stuff the giant into the back of a squad car, they could have called for a paddy wagon.

    Begorrah! But all the Paddys are over in St Paul, misdirecting traffic.

  211. @Hibernian
    @Federalist

    Please re-read my post. I said that Ginsberg was an exception to Leftists rationalizing double jeopardy. Thus her dissent, which you note above, from a decision authorizing double jeopardy by separate sovereigns.

    Replies: @Federalist

    Please re-read my post. I said that Ginsberg was an exception to Leftists rationalizing double jeopardy.

    Mea culpa. You’re right. I misread your post.

  212. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Arguably, Chauvin’s actions did lead to Floyd’s death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out?

    Take off your lawyer hat and try thinking like a human being. (1) he wasn't face down, (2) he was complaining when he was bolt upright too, (3) had he and his chums left the scene 'ere the police arrived, he'd have expired anyway; (4) they'd called the ambulance and were waiting for it when he expired. The ambulance was later than they needed to be because they relied on a GPS which took them to the wrong location.

    Replies: @ganderson, @Lot, @Reg Cæsar

    ‘ere

    Ere is a whole word, not a contraction.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ere

    The fact-checker fact-checked!

  213. @wren
    OT: If no one mentioned this:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9297475/Black-student-not-victim-racism-eating-black-80k-Smith-College.html

    The whole brouhaha started with a hoax.

    Replies: @wren, @Achmed E. Newman

    Now there’s another guy that knows how to spell it. That’s at least 2.

    • Replies: @wren
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The other guy probably learned from Steve too.

    Recently I was looking into supreme court justices and was reading about the origins of "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" (the original wording.

    It seems to me that this kind of thing is very similar to that situation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

    There should be extra penalties for doing so in our current tinderbox of a society.

  214. @scrivener3
    @Buzz Mohawk

    As a former lawyer I feel compelled to come to the defense of my co-lawyers.

    My first premise is Americans are very rich. They may not have any reserve for medical or legal expenses but that is partly on them. They tend to spend anything that comes into their hands: a leased BMW, a large house with subzero and granite, an Iphone with unlimited data plan which must be replaced by a new model every two years.

    Second, part of the expense of the US legal system is an attempt to reach perfect justice without regard to cost. Almost unlimited discovery (something damning might turn up), construing pleadings to be valid if they can be twisted into a claim by any means, even if the judge has to discover the potential claim of the plaintiff.

    Third, most of the people ruined by legal expenses are people put through the meat grinder of criminal prosecution. The government has unlimited resources and no accountability. That is just part of the government maximizing its power against the individual. I never heard of middle or lower class citizens destroyed by a civil suit. Generally such defendants do not have enough assets to justify a large suit against them even if it were successful. A businessman ruined by a law suit was usually at fault. I never heard of someone using civil legal process under a groundless claim to destroy the other party because they spend unlimited amounts on lawyers. Tobacco companies were beat by relatively poor plaintiffs. An individual beat GM on their claim of leather seats when only the facing of the seats was leather.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    Remove the barrier to entry. Each state create its requirements for bar, not to include a law degree or other expensive right to passage. Let bright legal minds work around the swamp.

  215. “from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it…mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action.”

    Good point. This reminded me of how doctors, on average, reach their diagnosis of you after an average of 18 seconds, and strongly tend to stick with it. The psychological term is “anchoring.” There is an entire literature on this. Plan your 18 seconds very wisely. Pro tip: Don’t use precious seconds with yuh-know or um, unless you sense that the doctor requires these “auditory pauses” to achieve comprehension.

    Lawyers are of course the exact opposite; “drawn-out” is the template.

  216. “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

    It occurs to me for the first time that this phrase could be interpreted to mean that you can be tried over and over again by the same jurisdiction for the same crime, as long as the only potential penalties you face are fine and/or imprisonment.

    Not that I’m arguing that should be interpreted that way, but look at the plain words of the phrase. Isn’t that as reasonable an interpretation the prevailing one: the feds can prosecute you for the same act of which you’ve been acquitted in state court?

  217. @Tono Bungay
    @Percy Gryce

    I didn't read the whole NYT story about the Smith College brouhaha, but I was surprised by what I did read, in that it really did give both sides of the story, something I'd thought the Times was no longer capable of. But it is still astonishing how wacky and ideology-addled these university administrators are!

    Replies: @Ragno, @additionalMike

    There is no reason for the NY Times not to be fair…the election is over, they have done their job for the Party, and it is now time to appear fair and balanced, etc., …until the next election.

  218. @JMcG
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Many years ago, while on a date, I came upon the scene of a smash and grab robbery in Center City Philadelphia. The young woman whose car had been robbed pointed out the guy who had done it. He was maybe 30 yards away, head down and walking away.
    Without even thinking about it, I ran after the guy, built up a head of steam, and put my shoulder right between his shoulder blades at full speed. He went flying and landed in a heap. Just as I was beginning to wonder what I was supposed to do next, he wordlessly handed the stolen bag over. He got up and walked away. He was well dressed, fit right in on an early spring evening in a nice part of town.
    I gave the bag back to the girl, who found nothing missing.
    The thief was black. Now, imagine if I’d been on a surveillance camera or cell phone camera. Just how miserable would my life have turned out if footage of (a much younger) me knocking down a black guy on a crowded sidewalk and taking a bag from him had been on the local news every half hour with the present Philly D.A. Deciding whether or not to charge me?
    There’s not a hope in hell I’d come to the aid of anyone not in my immediate circle of acquaintances any more. Really, it was foolish to have done it then. I was extremely lucky not to have been shot.

    Replies: @Flip, @Achmed E. Newman

    In the spur of the moment you did the right thing, Mr. McG.

    That said, I also agree with your hindsight, especially in this day of ubiquitous video footage. White men are 2nd-Class citizens in this country now.

    • Agree: SafeNow, ic1000
  219. Anonymous[488] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Arguably, Chauvin's actions did lead to Floyd's death. Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out? While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    The original 911 caller told the operator that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant - I assume that this was passed on to Chauvin.

    Putting aside criminal law, from a psychological POV I think Chauvin made a mistake that a lot of cops tend to make. They make a decision and they stick to it - for example they might decide that you are guilty of some crime. Once they make that decision their mind gets stuck in a groove and for whatever reason (desire not to lose face?) they become very reluctant to change their course of action. From the point that they have made their decision, they are no longer willing or capable of reacting to further inputs. I don't know what it is about police work or they type of people who are attracted to it that makes them reluctant to change their minds, but it's a real thing.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don't know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different and kept it up even after the ambulance had arrived. What may have started out as a reasonable restraint may at some point have become unreasonable when the circumstances changed but Chauvin kept doing the same thing and refused to react to these changes.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Art Deco, @Sean, @Dube, @Curmudgeon, @Mike Tre, @Anonymous

    Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out?

    Usually when a suspect is able to complain that he is unable to breathe—especially over the course of many minutes—it is good evidence he in fact can breath and is just lying in an attempt to get out of arrest. Breathing is typically necessary for speech. If you are talking, you are breathing.

    While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties

    Chauvin didn’t “know” that Floyd was “having breathing difficulties.” Floyd’s ability to talk showed the opposite and that is the exactly the inference Chauvin drew.

    and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.

    Chauvin didn’t think Floyd was unconscious. Even if he did, he had no reason to think it was because of the neck restraint, which didn’t impede Floyd’s airway or the flow of blood to his brain.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don’t know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different

    The reason was that Floyd’s ability to keep talking over several minutes showed to the officers that Floyd was able to breath. The autopsy corroborates their inference.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "The reason was that Floyd’s ability to keep talking over several minutes showed to the officers that Floyd was able to breath."

    https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-4186

    https://www.calibrepress.com/2020/06/screaming-their-last-breath-why-first-responders-must-never-ignore-the-words-i-cant-breathe/

  220. @Abe
    @Buzz Mohawk


    In Connecticut, the law requires me to hire a lawyer when I do real estate transactions or manage an estate — when I do the exact same things I have done in Colorado. Then I get the bill for thousands of dollars, for some slow, unresponsive, dense, thick-headed, Ivy League douchebag who files the exact same kinds of papers I file myself in Colorado.
     
    I worked with a bargain basement patent attorney once- the sangfroid of Krusty the Klown, professional competence only slightly above Lionel Hutz’s. I wrote nearly the entire patent but I knew that was part of the deal given his low low rates.

    What cheesed me, though, was that the Federal filing fees came in a couple hundred $ less than what I paid, yet he never refunded me despite I’m sure keeping meticulous records. Luckily within the year he dropped dead, so we were cool again.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    A couple hundred. You’re doing well, my friend.

  221. @Jack D
    @David In TN

    You are supposed to be punished for murder regardless of whether the jury likes the victim or not. Lots of murder victims are not sympathetic characters. Most of the people who get killed in LA are a million times less sympathetic than Nicole Simpson (not to mention Ron Goldman - what was his sin?) - drug dealers and such.

    The OJ verdict was 100% explainable by race (the jury's, not Nicole's). The DA screwed up royally when they tried the case downtown before a mostly black jury. What were they thinking?

    Replies: @black sea, @Polistra, @David In TN

    What were they thinking?

    Steve has at least one post & comment thread devoted to this very question, and the reasonable consensus is that Marcia Clark thought women on the jury would sympathize with a battered wife, when in fact (black) women on the jury were hell-bent on punishing the (incidentally dead) white chick for stealing one of their high-value (black) men.

    Yeah, black women blame the white women not the black men. Meanwhile, if Marcia Clark did indeed think this above (I didn’t read her book) she’s an idiot.

    OTOH, is it right to call someone an idiot if they’re simply responding to mass-media-induced prejudices? Hmm, probably.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Polistra

    Johnny Cochran was smarter than Marcia Clark about how black women think.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    , @S
    @Polistra


    Marcia Clark thought women on the jury would sympathize with a battered wife, when in fact (black) women on the jury were hell-bent on punishing the (incidentally dead) white chick for stealing one of their high-value (black) men.
     
    I read the book written by the lawyer who won the wrongful death civil suit against O.J. At the start of the book he made sure to lay out his confirmed 'progressive' credentials, ie he was of a proud Italian immigrant background and very liberal, and defined 'progressivism' as an ideology that at its core (paraphrasing slightly) that does not allow for a Black person to even appear to be beneath a White person in anything.

    Having got that out of the way, he then describes how they held multiple mock jury trials, and that the Black mock jurors, no matter what evidence of OJ's guilt was presented, would always vote that O.J. was not guilty.

    It was at that point, irregardless of this lawyer's self declared progressivism, that he decided that the only way his case would prevail (and also help ensure he would collect his fees no doubt) would be to exclude Blacks as much as possible from the jury, and to stack the jury with almost all Whites, which he proceeded to do.

    He won the case.

    He was pretty blunt about it. If that lawyer is still alive, under today's climate, he may regret having been so straight forward.
  222. @Achmed E. Newman
    @wren

    Now there's another guy that knows how to spell it. That's at least 2.

    Replies: @wren

    The other guy probably learned from Steve too.

    Recently I was looking into supreme court justices and was reading about the origins of “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic” (the original wording.

    It seems to me that this kind of thing is very similar to that situation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

    There should be extra penalties for doing so in our current tinderbox of a society.

  223. @Alice in Wonderland
    @Wilkey


    The bigger threat to our Constitutional rights has come from the way in which the Supreme Court has allowed the government”s supposed obligation to end discrimination to override expressed rights like religion, speech, assembly, and property.
     
    To be fair, it is the woke whites who want to take away your rights like religion, assembly, and speech. The folks in the hood just want your property.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The folks in the hood just want your property.

    Women are property?

  224. Anonymous[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    @Art Deco

    “ Take off your lawyer hat ”

    Thank you.

    Jack D: this isn’t a time to carefully analyze what happened, but rather to show unquestioning solidarity with a law enforcement officer dealing with a gigantic home invading drug addict in the process of ODing, but charged with premeditated murder because of anti-white animus.

    People like Derek and Kyle R. need intelligent and articulate advocates who take their side as aggressively as their persecutors.

    Replies: @Polistra, @MBlanc46, @Anonymous

    Jack D: this isn’t a time to carefully analyze what happened, but rather to show unquestioning solidarity with a law enforcement officer dealing with a gigantic home invading drug addict in the process of ODing, but charged with premeditated murder because of anti-white animus.

    People like Derek and Kyle R. need intelligent and articulate advocates who take their side as aggressively as their persecutors.

    This is well put, and speaks well of your sense of justice, loyalty, and character. But it tends to give Jack D too much credit for “careful analysis.”

    If a suspect is able to speak, he is able to breath. Chauvin drew the reasonable inference that Floyd was faking the “I can’t breathe” complaints in order to try to avoid being taken in to jail. It’s a pretty typical gambit among inner city arrestees. The autopsy results corroborate the accuracy of that inference.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Anonymous

    In any First Aid Class, one is taught that if a subject can speak, he is able to breathe on his own. Instructors stress that the maneuver formerly known as Heimlich is not to be attempted on a subject who is able to speak.
    I’m certain that Chauvin would have known this.

  225. @Louis Renault
    @Henry Canaday

    They'll just charge him with different crimes that he wasn't charged with originally. There must be a dozens on the books.

    Replies: @donut

    How to Become a Federal Criminal: An Illustrated Handbook for the Aspiring Offender Hardcover – June 4, 2019
    by Mike Chase

  226. @Macumazahn
    @Sean

    Am I the only one who thinks that Chauvin might have relented if he were not being subjected to endless ook-ook invective from the bystanders? If Officer Chauvin was indeed thinking "F-you," his thoughtcrime was directed at the screaming piece-of-crap videographers, not at Saint George. Chauvin thought it was just another day of dealing with the worthless two-legged feces of the ghetto streets. Little did he know that America now canonizes violent junkie retard felons - if they're negroes.
    Chauvin should get a commendation, not a trial.

    Replies: @Sean

    Before the double murder that got him 30 years in prison, the NYPD’s Bill Phillips did in fact get a commendation for shooting dead a black, who supposedly attacked him with a knife and cut his finger. The usual procedure seems to have for cops to carry a knife as a throwdown.

    Former Detroit police officer Raymond Peterson, a member of the controversial STRESS (Stop the Robberies Enjoy Safe Streets) Unit, was awarded two years back pay and a possible disability pension by an arbitration board recently.

    Peterson, 40, was involved in 12 STRESS-related shootings, which resulted in the deaths of five persons. Peterson was acquitted in 1974 of second degree murder in the March 1973 shooting of Robert Hoyt. The police trial board upheld Peterson’s firing after it was found that he planted his own knife on Hoyt and then lied about it. […]

    The testimony of Sgt. Mary Jarrett of the police crime laboratory in that trial established the fact that the knife on Hoyt had been in the pocket of Peterson. Apparently her testimony paled in comparison to the crucial and perhaps pivotal testimony of psychiatrist Bruce Danto, who said Peterson was “a very frightened man who responded to the real threat in terms of his life on the basis of a conditioned fear which produced a dissociative state.”

    Re what drove Chauvin to flush his life down the toilet: this might seem strange, but I think the fact he was being filmed had something to do with the way he acted, I really do.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Sean

    See my earlier comment about "loss of face". If he took his knee off of Chauvin it would have been an admission to the crowd that they were right. Chauvin kept kneeling even after Floyd was unconscious and after the paramedics arrived. He was determined not to give in to the crowd shouting at him.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

    , @Anonymous
    @Sean


    Re what drove Chauvin to flush his life down the toilet: this might seem strange, but I think the fact he was being filmed had something to do with the way he acted, I really do.
     
    Chauvin knew he was doing nothing wrong, and that he was protecting the other officers, passing cars, and the suspect himself.

    If you are speaking, you are breathing.
  227. @Jack D
    @David In TN

    You are supposed to be punished for murder regardless of whether the jury likes the victim or not. Lots of murder victims are not sympathetic characters. Most of the people who get killed in LA are a million times less sympathetic than Nicole Simpson (not to mention Ron Goldman - what was his sin?) - drug dealers and such.

    The OJ verdict was 100% explainable by race (the jury's, not Nicole's). The DA screwed up royally when they tried the case downtown before a mostly black jury. What were they thinking?

    Replies: @black sea, @Polistra, @David In TN

    I’m perfectly aware (a trial junkie since age 7) “you are supposed to be punished for murder regardless of whether the jury likes the victim or not.” The main problem in this instance was a “sympathetic defendant,” in spades if you pardon the expression.

    Most murder defendants in a place like Los Angeles are very unsympathetic characters. O.J. was anything but in 1994. Marcia Clark’s last trial before Simpson was the Olive Street church shooting. The principals were all black, both victims and suspects. The killers were low-level street criminals. The victims were Church Ladies, as likable as you could find. The woman (who played the organ) who was the target wasn’t even in church that night. The killers shot two women dead anyway. At one point, one of the defendants physically attacked his own lawyer, possibly hoping for a mistrial. Both killers were convicted and sentenced to death. They are still on death row, but will not be executed.

    O.J. Simpson as a defendant (and Nicole as a victim) couldn’t have been more different.

    The DA at the time, Gil Garcetti (his son is now the Mayor) had the case tried downtown in order to pacify the black electorate. This was both for his reelection campaign and any other ambition he had. Garcetti told the press a guilty verdict before a jury filled with blacks would have more credibility. When criticism came his way, Garcetti then said the Santa Monica courthouse was damaged by the earthquake of a few months prior.

  228. @Flip
    @JMcG

    I know of a middle aged white guy who chased a black kid who stole the tips jar from a Starbucks and ended up getting run over by the kid and killed.

    Replies: @JMcG

    I don’t doubt it. It was a stupid thing to do for a stranger’s bag. Never again.

  229. Too bad the 2020 republican candidate went out of his way to repel 55% of the electorate, that’s why we are in this situation. Maybc we’ll have better luck in 24 or 28.

  230. I never got the irony before: Double jeopardy was forbidden to the federal government, *then* applied to the states- and then the federal government was essentially exempted. It’s perverse.

    I’d like to see a state try to bring charges against someone who was cleared at the federal level.

    (Actually that happens- if the president issues an unpopular pardon, for example, states will sometimes say that state charges still apply. But again, that’s usually only done for politically unfavored persons.)

    • Replies: @James B. Shearer
    @Nachum

    "I’d like to see a state try to bring charges against someone who was cleared at the federal level."

    Sergey Aleynikov.

    "... He is currently appealing that conviction on double jeopardy grounds. .."

    Replies: @Nachum

  231. @Polistra
    @Jack D


    What were they thinking?
     
    Steve has at least one post & comment thread devoted to this very question, and the reasonable consensus is that Marcia Clark thought women on the jury would sympathize with a battered wife, when in fact (black) women on the jury were hell-bent on punishing the (incidentally dead) white chick for stealing one of their high-value (black) men.

    Yeah, black women blame the white women not the black men. Meanwhile, if Marcia Clark did indeed think this above (I didn't read her book) she's an idiot.

    OTOH, is it right to call someone an idiot if they're simply responding to mass-media-induced prejudices? Hmm, probably.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @S

    Johnny Cochran was smarter than Marcia Clark about how black women think.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @Steve Sailer

    What about Chris Darden?

    Replies: @Rob McX

  232. @Hanoi Paris Hilton
    @Jonathan Mason

    The coroners report and autopsy of Floyd quitely released within days of his death —but effectively buried politically for obvious ideological advantage by the likes of MN A.G. Keith Ellison— determined that the level of fentanyl and fentanyl metabolites already in Floyd's bloodstream was at least twice and likely four times the "LD50", i.e., the dosage required to kill half those displaying it. Floyds' blood levels of methamphetamines, cocaine, and cannabinoids were also significant (if probably not in themselves fatal).

    Floyd didn't violently resist arrest and admitted freely that he had just "hooped", i.e., inserted anally, his remaining stash of fentanyl... likely trying to reduce his criminal liabilities (beyond passing the counterfeit $20 bill), if that stash were to be found intact on his person.

    While from the moment of his arrest (the police had been warned in advance by the complainant shopkeeper that Floyd's behavior was extremely unhinged) Floyd was acting terrified and irrational, heart-breakingly crying out for his late mother, the hooping no doubt significantly increased his fentanyl intoxication. The autopsy also shows Floyd's lungs to weigh three times the expected amount, indicating they were almost completely fluid-filled; a characteristic of fentanyl toxicology, and indicative that his "I can't breathe" pleas weren't a shabby ploy.

    Floyd's petty criminality subsequent to his spending five years in prison appeared not to have been notably thuggish or violent. He wasn't an evil man and may well have been trying to get his life in order, but his drug-induced cessation of breathing and unconsciousness some forty minutes after his initial arrest was entirely a result of his own actions and his misdirected life choices.

    Replies: @By-tor

    He put a gun to a woman’s belly in Houston to rob her of cash and drugs in 2007.

    Thankfully, some of the British press is not as shamelessly dishonest as the US’ press-government complex.

    Floyd had landed five years behind bars in 2009 for an assault and robbery two years earlier, and before that, had been convicted of charges ranging from theft with a firearm to drugs, the Daily Mail reported.

    George Floyd moved to Minneapolis in 2014 for a fresh start after being released from prison in Houston, Texas following an arrest for aggravated robbery.

    Floyd had turned his life around but died on Monday after a white officer knelt on his neck while arresting him for allegedly paying with a fake $20 bill. [ No, he overdosed after ‘hooping’ the Fentanyl. He admitted the act to police. That is why he couldn’t breathe. ]

    None of the officers could have been aware of Floyd’s more than a decade-old criminal history at the time of the arrest.

    The 46-year-old had left behind his past in Houston after being released from prison stemming from a 2007 robbery.

    He plead guilty to entering a woman’s home, pointing a gun at her stomach and searching the home for drugs and money, according to court records.

    Floyd was sentenced to 10 months in jail for having less than one gram of cocaine in a December 2005 arrest.

    He had previously been sentenced to eight months for the same offense, stemming from an October 2002 arrest.

    Floyd was arrested in 2002 for criminal trespassing and served 30 days in jail.

    He had another stint for a theft in August 1998.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8366533/George-Floyd-moved-Minneapolis-start-new-life-released-prison-Texas.html

  233. anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lurker
    @Hypnotoad666


    totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists
     
    So which is it left or fascist?

    Or by 'fascist' you just mean 'stuff I don't like'? In which case why not use 'communist'?

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @anon

    So which is it left or fascist?

    Here are some quotes. Are they left, or fascist? Who would say such things?

    The state reserves the right to be the sole interpreter of the needs of society.

    Journalism is not a profession, but a mission.

    We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them.</blockquote.

  234. The FBI has also been brought into the Lady Gaga dog-napping/armed robbery. The suspects are seen on video to be two Black males in their early 20s. The FBI is investigating whether they are Trump supporters taking revenge for Lady Gaga singing at Biden’s inauguration.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9302469/FBI-investigate-Lady-Gagas-dognapping-political-sang-Bidens-inauguration.html

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Peter Johnson


    The FBI has also been brought into the Lady Gaga dog-napping/armed robbery.
     
    But of course! The FBI has plenty of time on its hands now that they've dealt with Hunter Biden's laptop.
    , @John Johnson
    @Peter Johnson

    The FBI has also been brought into the Lady Gaga dog-napping/armed robbery. The suspects are seen on video to be two Black males in their early 20s. The FBI is investigating whether they are Trump supporters taking revenge for Lady Gaga singing at Biden’s inauguration.

    I was going to LOL your comment until I saw that it wasn't parody.

    I guess we are already into Biden's New Age of Equality. Deny the obvious and blame Trump voters.

    Looks like the British aren't buying it. Here is the top rated comment:

    well sure it was....two white guys in MAGA hats right? maybe Jussie Smollet could help give a description.

    577:9 up/down votes.

    Of course most US media doesn't allow comments. Can't be letting the proles disrupt the circus with their observations of reality.

  235. @Anonymous
    @Flemur


    Lileks mentions a lot of anti-citizen barriers going up around gummint buildings in Minneapolis; I wonder if those are somehow connected to the double-jeopardy double-dealings.
     
    Does Likeks think Chauvin is innocent?

    Replies: @duncsbaby

    Does Likeks think Chauvin is innocent?

    My guess is Lileks secretly thinks Chauvin is innocent but he lives in Minneapolis and is employed by the very liberal Star Tribune so he’s smart enough to not opine on Chauvin’s innocence. I’m sure he’s convinced himself of the ultimate wisdom of this. He lives on a public street that would be instantly filled w/BLM-Antifa protesters if he expressed any public doubts about Chauvin’s guilt. Lileks is very good at recording the feel of a town gutted by riots and covid-19 hysteria and opines on the subsequent degradations of daily life. He ain’t gonna wade into the hottest political story in recent Minneapolis history. In fairness that ain’t his beat anyway.

  236. @Nachum
    I never got the irony before: Double jeopardy was forbidden to the federal government, *then* applied to the states- and then the federal government was essentially exempted. It's perverse.

    I'd like to see a state try to bring charges against someone who was cleared at the federal level.

    (Actually that happens- if the president issues an unpopular pardon, for example, states will sometimes say that state charges still apply. But again, that's usually only done for politically unfavored persons.)

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

    “I’d like to see a state try to bring charges against someone who was cleared at the federal level.”

    Sergey Aleynikov.

    “… He is currently appealing that conviction on double jeopardy grounds. ..”

    • Replies: @Nachum
    @James B. Shearer

    Well, good luck to him. I guess I should say that I'd like to see it happen to a member of a favored class, nudge nudge.

  237. Anonymous[193] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Federalist

    Jack D correctly describes the "separate sovereigns" doctrine, but I think the problem is where as here the second prosecution would be a sham based upon a nebulous "civil rights" offense rather than a bone fide second crime simply arising from the same transaction implicating the Federal Government's interests. This sham style of double "civil rights" prosecution was pioneered in the "Civil Rights" era (go figure) on the justification that Southern juries would not convict members of the Klan etc. regardless of the evidence, so the Federal government felt the need to step in and prosecute in order to break up the Klan.

    "Separate sovereigns" doctrines is often invoked in the context of Organized Crime/RICO prosecutions, because with a few narrow exceptions murder itself is not a Federal crime (although murder for hire is a Federal Crime and predicate offense under RICO). So what will happen is that the U.S. Attorneys Office will take the first shot with a months long RICO prosecution, and then the State will prosecute the actual murder cases later.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    See: title -The Age of Entitlement author – Christopher Caldwell
    Content: presents a 2 Constitution theory, in which the 1964 CRA supersedes the previous Constitution. Caldwell traces the process by which this occurs from the conventional legal and financial aspects, and presents a coherent case that the descendants of the 1945 US population now assumed to violate the 1964 CRA by intrinsic “Whiteness” and thus have no legal rights whatsoever (e.g., my examples being that right to property is negated by “black reparations”, right to life is negated by “civil rights” offenses )
    Author’s background: NY Times.

    Note that Caldwell leaves out HBD, cultural differences, the Gilded Age migration, etc. Nor does he include cross-cultural references. His book is entirely conventional, but also revises history as it has been presented to the American (and Western) population, including its professional classes. Caldwell appears to have been trying to explain how Trump came to be elected but, like Michael Moore, has accomplished a more than he may have intended.

  238. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jonathan Mason

    You will note that I clicked the "Agree" button for you, but you must also know that OJ Simpson is probably not the best example you could have used. You used him because he is famous.

    Yep, famous, all right. A famous example of jury nullification.

    He received a maximum-type penalty for the latter crime, but it was within sentencing guidelines. Practically everyone of reason understood why and was happy about it.

    Again, you need to find a better example.

    You left out the civil case for the deaths, which he lost to the tune of millions of dollars -- essentially bankrupting him if he wasn't already bankrupt from previous legal fees. (Gotta love the lawyer business! Save your client and then take everything he owns from him.)

    Pick another example. Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Curmudgeon, @Macumazahn, @Anon

    “Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead.”

    Chad OJ the punisher, you white cucks wouldn’t have turned out like the battered housewives you are had you lots of OJs.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Anon

    Chad OJ the punisher, you white cucks wouldn’t have turned out like the battered housewives you are had you lots of OJs.

    As the great Rowan Atkinson put it "I wondered then as I wonder now, if he might not have turned out to be a very different boy indeed if you had administered a few fatal beatings early on".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppVpdsClN80

  239. @Steve Sailer
    @Polistra

    Johnny Cochran was smarter than Marcia Clark about how black women think.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    What about Chris Darden?

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Darden seems to have been an AA hire, in effect. A more street smart black lawyer might have been better able to predict black jurors' reactions to prosecution strategy. Maybe this guy would have done better.

    https://i.redd.it/bwz0pcnhx1t11.jpg

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  240. @Calvin Hobbes
    @Jonathan Mason


    The real scandal is that lawyers run a cartel to charge the public an hourly rate about 10 times what they are really worth.
     
    You’ll probably enjoy seeing the scatterplots here:

    https://twitter.com/DavidPittelli1/status/1199391328783732743

    There are a lot of lawyers who ran up ridiculous student debt in law school and who afterwards didn’t make much money. I’ll bet many of their jobs are very unpleasant, too.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Yeah, woe is you if you’re the typical grad of Florida Coastal School of Law.

    That graph also makes obvious how much of a difference your law school makes. Notre Dame, for example, might sound very solid to a nice midwesterner like me. But you’re likely to end up just as deeply in debt as a Harvard grad and make less than half the starting salary. Georgetown also does much worse than I’d have expected.

    Where’s Yale, BTW?

  241. @Curmudgeon
    @Jack D

    This is a political show trial.
    Chauvin was a trainer for the MPD. There has been no statement made by anyone, alleging he failed to follow established MPD policies and procedures. Chauvin removed Floyd from the vehicle because of his difficulty breathing. If a prisoner is handcuffed, placing him on the ground in the position Floyd was in, is as close to "recovery" position as you can get. Recovery position allows saliva and vomit to drain away, preventing aspiration, which being upright or on his back, would not. The knee restraint used is part of the MPD training done by Israelis. It certainly has bad optics, but is not fatal.
    The question I have had from the beginning,is why were 3 cars dispatched to an alleged passing of counterfeit money followed by grab and dash?

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Chauvin was a trainer for the MPD.

    Oh.

    Source?

    • Replies: @res
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter, you're a good commenter. Why didn't you look for it yourself? This was easy to find.
    Derek Chauvin Trained New Officers Despite Receiving Complaints At Over Double The Rate Of Average Officers
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/10/derek-chauvin-complaints-police-minneapolis-george-floyd/

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  242. @BBerliner
    @Buzz Mohawk


    but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.
     
    That’s why I’m extremely careful about what I say in person or online about anyone (even anonymously, which I assume, ultimately, is not) and I don’t have a Twitter or Instagram account.

    I also don’t leave online reviews (Yelp, Amazon sellers, etc.) lest I say something perceived as libel even if I thought it was innocuous or even complimentary. I have nothing to gain and potentially and a lot to lose by posting my honest opinions about someone or some group on Twitter or a business review on Yelp.

    You make an off-handed defamatory remark about someone— maybe you thought you read it somewhere about them— and you say it about the wrong person and it will destroy your life.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/movies/james-woods-sues-anonymous-twitter-user-10m-alleging-defamation-n401831

    James Woods Sues Anonymous Twitter User for $10M, Alleging Defamation
    Woods is suing for defamation and invasion of privacy by false light for an "outrageous" tweet claiming he uses cocaine.
     
    The guy finished out the last years of his life from a terminal disease and an ongoing multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit.

    https://www.newsweek.com/james-woods-coke-addict-defamation-lawsuit-538494

    Why Is Actor James Woods Ruthlessly Pursuing a Lawsuit Against a Dead Guy?

    ..."Learn this," [Woods] said in a tweet that has since been deleted. “Libel me, I'll sue you. If you die, I'll follow you to the bowels of Hell. Get it?”

    It is nearly a year later, and Woods can still be said to be in the bowels of hell fishing around for his $10 million...
     
    The guy Woods was suing was a Harvard graduate and I assume reasonably well off. But few if any people can withstand years of civil litigation and a $10 million judgment.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work
     
    Weren’t you the one looking into a Yale School of Mgmt. program? Talk about rent-seeking! Btw, the only reason I remembered you posting this is because you bragged about turning down the advances of a super-fit Japanese-American women which I couldn’t comprehend.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Buzz Mohawk

    Weren’t you the one looking into a Yale School of Mgmt. program? Talk about rent-seeking!

    Weren’t you the one who just said “That’s why I’m extremely careful about what I say in person or online about anyone (even anonymously, which I assume, ultimately, is not)?

  243. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jack D


    Sean says (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that when Chauvin arrived and began kneeling, Floyd was already cuffed and in no position to drive off.
     
    We talk about the specifics but I have yet to hear a constructive answer for what cops are supposed to do to a large black man under the influence of narcotics where there is probable cause of the commission of a crime but who doesn't feel like getting arrested today. It's parallel to "kids in cages" in that way.

    The implication, but not the text seems to be "let the black guy do what he wants."

    Replies: @Jack D

    I don’t know exactly what they SHOULD do, but I do know what they SHOULDN’T do – kill the guy.

    I’m not an expert on police tactics but there should be some way to effectuate an arrest without killing the guy.

    • Replies: @petit bourgeois
    @Jack D

    This, exactly. I am litigating three dead bodies on my desk right now, and I have to make this argument every day suing cops and government entities.

    (In response to a previous commenter, the legal defense is usually paid for by the employer, e.g. federal gubmint, state, county or city. If the cops are facing disciplinary action, the city will hire a different law firm for the individual cops, because there is a conflict of interest between the city and individual employees. If the city doesn't provide a defense, you can bet the police union will step in, no matter how egregious the offense).

    The problem is the dead bodies are drug addicts and dirtbags, like Saint George. Meth and fentanyl cause so much trouble in our society. But we always squeeze the municipal entity for some dough. They'd rather pay than risk a multi million verdict at trial.

    People who run into police when they are high out of their minds are always going to be at risk of death, especially when resisting arrest.

    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jack D


    I don’t know exactly what they SHOULD do, but I do know what they SHOULDN’T do – kill the guy.

    I’m not an expert on police tactics but there should be some way to effectuate an arrest without killing the guy.

     

    You're making my point.

    You have no experience with taking a large intoxicated street criminal into custody - your only response is "DO SOMETHING! NO, NOT THAT! DO THE OTHER THING! NO, NOT THAT EITHER!"

    Given that the U.S. black population is over 48,000,000 souls, and this population hits high above its numbers in terms of crime and therefore represents an outsized proportion of annual police interactions, I'd say police are doing a really good job. With enough interactions some freak events are just going to occur. That's math, not racism.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    I’m not an expert on police tactics but there should be some way to effectuate an arrest without killing the guy.
     
    What if, in the course being arrested, the guy has a heart attack from fear of jail or from exerting himself in resisting arrest? Easy to believe that one’s heart rate and blood pressure would rise in almost any arrest scenario. Being arrested can be stressful even when no force is involved or the suspect doesn’t try to fight off the police.
  244. @Corvinus
    @ic1000

    "Grizzled Baghdad bureau chief and Pulitzer Prize winner don’t measure up to the standards of random nobodies on the internet. We agree."

    I didn't agree. But thanks for the straw man and red herring all neatly rolled up into one.

    "Correct. Wisely or not, most people rely on mainstream sources, or worse (Facebook)."

    Most people read mainstream sources, compare what they read between those sources, and draw their own conclusions. Here is Ron Unz himself:


    I apply the same historical methods I did in my academic journal articles back in the 1980s. You analyze the likely reliability of the raw information presented, look for confirming or refuting evidence, and then draw your own plausible conclusions…On a more serious note, many of my articles very heavily cite various MSM sources, so why would I do that if I believed they were always lying?”
     
    " it wasn’t until June that the autopsy revealed that George Floyd died when a police officer, who was employing a questionable maneuver for nine minutes that rendered Floyd unable to breathe, and whose bloodstream also contained potentially lethal levels of Fentanyl."

    There is no ?? on your part. The statement above is clear as day. Don't feign (Sailer) ignorance.

    The fact of the matter is that a jury will decide whether or not the officer's actions contributed to Floyd's death.

    Replies: @ic1000

    > I didn’t agree. But thanks for the straw man and red herring all neatly rolled up into one.

    Neither man nor herring. Seemed too obvious to need a [/sarc] tag.

    Other commenters have brought up important points, some favoring Chauvin’s defense and others not. But your contribution to this thread is nothing to crow about. As a smart and knowledgeable defender of the Establishment, you can do better.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  245. @BBerliner
    @Buzz Mohawk


    but for many mere mortal Americans, a single lawsuit or charge requiring the services of a single, halfway-decent lawyer can bring about bankruptcy. That very real chance somehow seems wrong to many mere mortal Americans.
     
    That’s why I’m extremely careful about what I say in person or online about anyone (even anonymously, which I assume, ultimately, is not) and I don’t have a Twitter or Instagram account.

    I also don’t leave online reviews (Yelp, Amazon sellers, etc.) lest I say something perceived as libel even if I thought it was innocuous or even complimentary. I have nothing to gain and potentially and a lot to lose by posting my honest opinions about someone or some group on Twitter or a business review on Yelp.

    You make an off-handed defamatory remark about someone— maybe you thought you read it somewhere about them— and you say it about the wrong person and it will destroy your life.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/movies/james-woods-sues-anonymous-twitter-user-10m-alleging-defamation-n401831

    James Woods Sues Anonymous Twitter User for $10M, Alleging Defamation
    Woods is suing for defamation and invasion of privacy by false light for an "outrageous" tweet claiming he uses cocaine.
     
    The guy finished out the last years of his life from a terminal disease and an ongoing multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit.

    https://www.newsweek.com/james-woods-coke-addict-defamation-lawsuit-538494

    Why Is Actor James Woods Ruthlessly Pursuing a Lawsuit Against a Dead Guy?

    ..."Learn this," [Woods] said in a tweet that has since been deleted. “Libel me, I'll sue you. If you die, I'll follow you to the bowels of Hell. Get it?”

    It is nearly a year later, and Woods can still be said to be in the bowels of hell fishing around for his $10 million...
     
    The guy Woods was suing was a Harvard graduate and I assume reasonably well off. But few if any people can withstand years of civil litigation and a $10 million judgment.

    All those arcane laws that make each of us guilty three times a day of felonies (as supposed lawyers here love to point out?) Those laws that require Talmudic pubic hair splitting? Guess who wrote them. Self-serving vultures.

    Rent-seeking lawyers at work
     
    Weren’t you the one looking into a Yale School of Mgmt. program? Talk about rent-seeking! Btw, the only reason I remembered you posting this is because you bragged about turning down the advances of a super-fit Japanese-American women which I couldn’t comprehend.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Buzz Mohawk

    Thanks for your reply.

    … a super-fit Japanese-American woman…

    I didn’t say “super-fit;” I said “athletic-looking,” meaning she was sporty and had a more athletic body than the usual Japanese pixie girl. She was also aggressive, which is why I said she was “not my type.” I have always liked smart, petite brunettes (married one) but not insistent ones.

  246. @Sean
    @Macumazahn

    Before the double murder that got him 30 years in prison, the NYPD's Bill Phillips did in fact get a commendation for shooting dead a black, who supposedly attacked him with a knife and cut his finger. The usual procedure seems to have for cops to carry a knife as a throwdown.

    https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/files/large/8e0ec93cbb7111fbeabfea6123b61360b6345889.jpg


    Former Detroit police officer Raymond Peterson, a member of the controversial STRESS (Stop the Robberies Enjoy Safe Streets) Unit, was awarded two years back pay and a possible disability pension by an arbitration board recently.

    Peterson, 40, was involved in 12 STRESS-related shootings, which resulted in the deaths of five persons. Peterson was acquitted in 1974 of second degree murder in the March 1973 shooting of Robert Hoyt. The police trial board upheld Peterson's firing after it was found that he planted his own knife on Hoyt and then lied about it. [...]

    The testimony of Sgt. Mary Jarrett of the police crime laboratory in that trial established the fact that the knife on Hoyt had been in the pocket of Peterson. Apparently her testimony paled in comparison to the crucial and perhaps pivotal testimony of psychiatrist Bruce Danto, who said Peterson was "a very frightened man who responded to the real threat in terms of his life on the basis of a conditioned fear which produced a dissociative state."
     

    Re what drove Chauvin to flush his life down the toilet: this might seem strange, but I think the fact he was being filmed had something to do with the way he acted, I really do.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Anonymous

    See my earlier comment about “loss of face”. If he took his knee off of Chauvin it would have been an admission to the crowd that they were right. Chauvin kept kneeling even after Floyd was unconscious and after the paramedics arrived. He was determined not to give in to the crowd shouting at him.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Jack D

    Maybe Derek Chauvin sensed a historic change in the mob as of Memorial Day 2020?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    Chauvin kept kneeling even after Floyd was unconscious and after the paramedics arrived. He was determined not to give in to the crowd shouting at him.
     
    Chauvin kept kneeling in order to keep Floyd restrained and prevent him from suddenly hurting an officer, or hurting himself by banging his head onto the concrete or car or by flopping into the street and getting hit by a passing car, or causing an accident.

    You wrongly assume Chauvin knew Floyd was unconscious. In fact, Chauvin reasonably believed that Floyd had finally accepted that the officers were not going to let him go and had simply finally surrendered to being arrested.

    You also wrongly assume that Chauvin should have removed the head restraint even if he knew Floyd was unconscious. Chauvin did not have reason to believe that anything he was doing was harming Floyd. In fact, he had reason to believe what he was doing was preventing harm. (See the preceding paragraph.) Those head restraints are standard procedure in the MPD and in Israel. They do not obstruct the airway or significantly impede the flow of blood to the brain. The autopsy results on Floyd confirm this. And in fact, Floyd kept talking for five minutes while under restraint.
  247. @Jack D
    @Sean

    See my earlier comment about "loss of face". If he took his knee off of Chauvin it would have been an admission to the crowd that they were right. Chauvin kept kneeling even after Floyd was unconscious and after the paramedics arrived. He was determined not to give in to the crowd shouting at him.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

    Maybe Derek Chauvin sensed a historic change in the mob as of Memorial Day 2020?

    • LOL: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Steve Sailer

    It may be one of those tragic Italian opera type things where he is so worried about something that he provokes the very thing that he is worried about.

    Apparently last year they offered Chauvin 10 years in the slammer and he was ready to take it but AG Barr turned it down. So while many here seem to think that Chauvin deserves to walk free, Chauvin and his counsel are perhaps more realistic as to where he stands now.

    I don't think that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd and maybe not even to punish him as Sean thinks but sometimes in life you make a wrong decision and things showball out of your control and you have to pay the consequences of the avalanche and not just the little snowball that you dropped. Chauvin picked the wrong Fentanyl addict to sit on. Even if he is acquitted after both his state and federal trials his life will never be the same. Even if kneeing Floyd was a standard police tactic (I'm not sure it's really in the book to do this for 8 or 9 minutes - I don't know but Sean says you are only supposed to do this long enough to cuff the suspect) it wasn't the right tactic to use and KEEP using that day. Chauvin didn't seem to have a Plan B so he stuck with Plan A much longer than was wise.

  248. @Polistra
    @petit bourgeois

    I took "Nevada is not California" to mean that since they are separate jurisdictions we have yet another reason the situation would not indicate double jeopardy. (Aside from the fact that they are entirely separate crimes under consideration.) Is that not right?

    Replies: @petit bourgeois

    Correct. Strongarm robbery in Nevada is not the same as murder in California, so no double jeopardy.

    But the judge and jury in Nevada did not forget that OJ got away with murder, and gave him a conviction and sentence accordingly.

    Orenthal got an appropriate sentence. While it may not technically be double jeopardy, the practical effect of that Nevada criminal prosecution is that the judge and jury punished him for a crime in California for which he was acquitted. Call it “karma is a bitch.”

    Chauvin will also be acquitted. Those in favor of acquittal, like me, can then be called “chauvinists.”

  249. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Likewise, much of the literal language of the Constitution, such as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, originally didn’t apply to states. Connecticut, for example, had a state religion, Congregationalism, into the 19th Century.
     
    I made this point before, but my historical knowledge was that Massachusetts and Rhode Island had established Congregationalist Churches. Was unaware that Connecticut had its own too.

    The Constitution is now interpreted to prohibit the government from appearing to endorse religion. It seems to me that endorsement is qualitatively quite different from establishment. I mean I've endorsed plenty of restaurants in my time, but have never established one.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Polistra, @G. Poulin

    All of the twentieth-century jurisprudence regarding the religion clauses of the First Amendment are bullshit, designed specifically to circumvent the original intent. The original intent was to prohibit the Federal government from interfering with the established religions of the states, and to prohibit it from interfering with religious practice generally. In other words, the intent of the First Amendment was to ENDORSE religious practice as it existed. Twentieth-century judges re-wrote the Constitution to suit themselves. They should all be dug up and publicly burnt.

  250. @Jack D
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    I don't know exactly what they SHOULD do, but I do know what they SHOULDN'T do - kill the guy.

    I'm not an expert on police tactics but there should be some way to effectuate an arrest without killing the guy.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Anonymous

    This, exactly. I am litigating three dead bodies on my desk right now, and I have to make this argument every day suing cops and government entities.

    (In response to a previous commenter, the legal defense is usually paid for by the employer, e.g. federal gubmint, state, county or city. If the cops are facing disciplinary action, the city will hire a different law firm for the individual cops, because there is a conflict of interest between the city and individual employees. If the city doesn’t provide a defense, you can bet the police union will step in, no matter how egregious the offense).

    The problem is the dead bodies are drug addicts and dirtbags, like Saint George. Meth and fentanyl cause so much trouble in our society. But we always squeeze the municipal entity for some dough. They’d rather pay than risk a multi million verdict at trial.

    People who run into police when they are high out of their minds are always going to be at risk of death, especially when resisting arrest.

  251. @Paperback Writer
    @Barnard

    What are you agreeing on? AD seems to be saying that he'll escape conviction.

    Replies: @Barnard

    My reading of his comment is that we are both expecting a hung jury in the event of a jury trial.

    • Thanks: Paperback Writer
  252. @Jack D
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    I don't know exactly what they SHOULD do, but I do know what they SHOULDN'T do - kill the guy.

    I'm not an expert on police tactics but there should be some way to effectuate an arrest without killing the guy.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Anonymous

    I don’t know exactly what they SHOULD do, but I do know what they SHOULDN’T do – kill the guy.

    I’m not an expert on police tactics but there should be some way to effectuate an arrest without killing the guy.

    You’re making my point.

    You have no experience with taking a large intoxicated street criminal into custody – your only response is “DO SOMETHING! NO, NOT THAT! DO THE OTHER THING! NO, NOT THAT EITHER!”

    Given that the U.S. black population is over 48,000,000 souls, and this population hits high above its numbers in terms of crime and therefore represents an outsized proportion of annual police interactions, I’d say police are doing a really good job. With enough interactions some freak events are just going to occur. That’s math, not racism.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    This particular death may be a freak event but look all around the world and you'll see that riots are quite often set off as a result of a bad experience between a cop and some kind of disaffected minority. It's even happened in Israel. Twice.

  253. Anonymous[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Sean

    See my earlier comment about "loss of face". If he took his knee off of Chauvin it would have been an admission to the crowd that they were right. Chauvin kept kneeling even after Floyd was unconscious and after the paramedics arrived. He was determined not to give in to the crowd shouting at him.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

    Chauvin kept kneeling even after Floyd was unconscious and after the paramedics arrived. He was determined not to give in to the crowd shouting at him.

    Chauvin kept kneeling in order to keep Floyd restrained and prevent him from suddenly hurting an officer, or hurting himself by banging his head onto the concrete or car or by flopping into the street and getting hit by a passing car, or causing an accident.

    You wrongly assume Chauvin knew Floyd was unconscious. In fact, Chauvin reasonably believed that Floyd had finally accepted that the officers were not going to let him go and had simply finally surrendered to being arrested.

    You also wrongly assume that Chauvin should have removed the head restraint even if he knew Floyd was unconscious. Chauvin did not have reason to believe that anything he was doing was harming Floyd. In fact, he had reason to believe what he was doing was preventing harm. (See the preceding paragraph.) Those head restraints are standard procedure in the MPD and in Israel. They do not obstruct the airway or significantly impede the flow of blood to the brain. The autopsy results on Floyd confirm this. And in fact, Floyd kept talking for five minutes while under restraint.

  254. Anonymous[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    @Macumazahn

    Before the double murder that got him 30 years in prison, the NYPD's Bill Phillips did in fact get a commendation for shooting dead a black, who supposedly attacked him with a knife and cut his finger. The usual procedure seems to have for cops to carry a knife as a throwdown.

    https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/files/large/8e0ec93cbb7111fbeabfea6123b61360b6345889.jpg


    Former Detroit police officer Raymond Peterson, a member of the controversial STRESS (Stop the Robberies Enjoy Safe Streets) Unit, was awarded two years back pay and a possible disability pension by an arbitration board recently.

    Peterson, 40, was involved in 12 STRESS-related shootings, which resulted in the deaths of five persons. Peterson was acquitted in 1974 of second degree murder in the March 1973 shooting of Robert Hoyt. The police trial board upheld Peterson's firing after it was found that he planted his own knife on Hoyt and then lied about it. [...]

    The testimony of Sgt. Mary Jarrett of the police crime laboratory in that trial established the fact that the knife on Hoyt had been in the pocket of Peterson. Apparently her testimony paled in comparison to the crucial and perhaps pivotal testimony of psychiatrist Bruce Danto, who said Peterson was "a very frightened man who responded to the real threat in terms of his life on the basis of a conditioned fear which produced a dissociative state."
     

    Re what drove Chauvin to flush his life down the toilet: this might seem strange, but I think the fact he was being filmed had something to do with the way he acted, I really do.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Anonymous

    Re what drove Chauvin to flush his life down the toilet: this might seem strange, but I think the fact he was being filmed had something to do with the way he acted, I really do.

    Chauvin knew he was doing nothing wrong, and that he was protecting the other officers, passing cars, and the suspect himself.

    If you are speaking, you are breathing.

  255. @JohnnyWalker123
    @Steve Sailer

    What about Chris Darden?

    Replies: @Rob McX

    Darden seems to have been an AA hire, in effect. A more street smart black lawyer might have been better able to predict black jurors’ reactions to prosecution strategy. Maybe this guy would have done better.

    • LOL: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Rob McX

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/89/f9/e7/89f9e7bd5616f1912a64283a8d0c1687.jpg

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2007/05/13/weekinreview/13johnson.600.jpg

    http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/353/70/320/oprah-auschwitz.jpg

  256. Anonymous[132] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    I don't know exactly what they SHOULD do, but I do know what they SHOULDN'T do - kill the guy.

    I'm not an expert on police tactics but there should be some way to effectuate an arrest without killing the guy.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois, @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @Anonymous

    I’m not an expert on police tactics but there should be some way to effectuate an arrest without killing the guy.

    What if, in the course being arrested, the guy has a heart attack from fear of jail or from exerting himself in resisting arrest? Easy to believe that one’s heart rate and blood pressure would rise in almost any arrest scenario. Being arrested can be stressful even when no force is involved or the suspect doesn’t try to fight off the police.

  257. @Anon
    I think a big issue is in manyof these police cases is the danger of suffocation when you restrain someone, espcially if they are obese or drugged up or otherwise in bad health.

    This is how Eric Garner died. He was alive on the ground, but he was obese, face down and was having an asthma attack.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/opinion/eric-garner-daniel-pantaleo-and-lethal-police-tactics.html

    This is how George Floyd died. The autopsies (two of them) made it clear that the knee was a "Covington kid" visual, but what killed him was the combination of three or four officers restraining his breathing and chest and diaphragm (been there myself, caught in a crowd at a festival, pushed in from all sides, very panic inducing).

    This is how this recent guy in the news, Daniel Prude, died.

    Police don't have training in getting the guy upright as quickly as possible, although Floyd was resisting and huge and strong and had already escaped, so even four cops were having problems.


    As early as 1995, a Department of Justice bulletin on “positional asphyxia” quoted the New York Police Department’s guidelines on preventing deaths in custody. “As soon as the subject is handcuffed, get him off his stomach. Turn him on his side or place him in a seated position.”

    As Michael Baden, a former chief medical examiner of New York City, told The Times: “Obese people especially, lying face down, prone, are unable to breathe when enough pressure is put on their back. The pressure prevents the diaphragm from going up and down, and he can’t inhale and exhale.
     

    Floyd was on his side, but crushed against the car, and doped up.

    It's too bad that the frenzy around these cases obscures this one concrete piece of training that could keep suspects alive. But no, the officer has to be demonized and destroyed.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Art Deco

    but what killed him was the combination of three or four officers restraining his breathing and chest and diaphragm

    What killed him was a lethal dose of fentanyl. His breathing and diaphragm were not restrained for any length of time. His lungs were filling up with fluid.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Maybe you're right - the defense will certainly argue this at trial and perhaps the jury will accept it.
    But in any case the optics were very bad - the Fentanyl was invisible but what the public saw on the video was a cop kneeing a man for many minutes while he pleaded that he couldn't breath and fell into unconsciousness.

    Chauvin's defenders are sort of in the position I mention in the thread about black attacks on Asians - we all see the video but the defenders have to say "Don't believe your lying eyes - it's not what you think it is. There is an invisible character in the video who you can't see (Mr. Fentanyl, Mr. White Supremacy) and he is the REAL perp. " Frankly this is a tough sell in both cases. It's very hard to overcome video evidence. If there had been security cam footage, even the OJ jury would have convicted.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  258. @Steve Sailer
    @Jack D

    Maybe Derek Chauvin sensed a historic change in the mob as of Memorial Day 2020?

    Replies: @Jack D

    It may be one of those tragic Italian opera type things where he is so worried about something that he provokes the very thing that he is worried about.

    Apparently last year they offered Chauvin 10 years in the slammer and he was ready to take it but AG Barr turned it down. So while many here seem to think that Chauvin deserves to walk free, Chauvin and his counsel are perhaps more realistic as to where he stands now.

    I don’t think that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd and maybe not even to punish him as Sean thinks but sometimes in life you make a wrong decision and things showball out of your control and you have to pay the consequences of the avalanche and not just the little snowball that you dropped. Chauvin picked the wrong Fentanyl addict to sit on. Even if he is acquitted after both his state and federal trials his life will never be the same. Even if kneeing Floyd was a standard police tactic (I’m not sure it’s really in the book to do this for 8 or 9 minutes – I don’t know but Sean says you are only supposed to do this long enough to cuff the suspect) it wasn’t the right tactic to use and KEEP using that day. Chauvin didn’t seem to have a Plan B so he stuck with Plan A much longer than was wise.

  259. @Sean
    @Jack D

    While a lot of what you say is true, Floyd dying changed everything, If someone happens to expire while you are doing something illegal to them, even if it's only technically illegal and quite commonly done without causing problems, you are up the proverbial creek. Chauvin did not deserve to get away with what he did, which included ignoring multiple colleagues.

    Chauvin arrived on the scene after Floyd was handcuffed, and so Floyd was already handcuffed when the bystander phone video starts. What was being done at that point had nothing to do with the authorized transient use of the restraint technique for getting the cuffs on a resisting arrestee. Chauvin initiated and sustained the use of the technique by way of a physical punishment of Floyd for his previous passive aggressive resisting of arrest.

    Though often observed in the breach, police officers are certainly aware they not allowed to use punitive force; what Chauvin did on the phone video was technically an assault from the very begining, and the risks increased with every second until Floyd up and died on Chauvin. So Chauvin was very reckless and he's paying the price of foolhardiness.

    Replies: @Jack D, @vhrm, @Macumazahn, @Art Deco

    Chauvin arrived on the scene after Floyd was handcuffed, and so Floyd was already handcuffed when the bystander phone video starts. What was being done at that point had nothing to do with the authorized transient use of the restraint technique for getting the cuffs on a resisting arrestee.

    He put Floyd on the ground because Floyd was contumacious in the vehicle. And, again, Floyd had so much fentanyl in his system he was a goner no batter what Chauvin had done.

  260. @Art Deco
    @Anon

    but what killed him was the combination of three or four officers restraining his breathing and chest and diaphragm

    What killed him was a lethal dose of fentanyl. His breathing and diaphragm were not restrained for any length of time. His lungs were filling up with fluid.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Maybe you’re right – the defense will certainly argue this at trial and perhaps the jury will accept it.
    But in any case the optics were very bad – the Fentanyl was invisible but what the public saw on the video was a cop kneeing a man for many minutes while he pleaded that he couldn’t breath and fell into unconsciousness.

    Chauvin’s defenders are sort of in the position I mention in the thread about black attacks on Asians – we all see the video but the defenders have to say “Don’t believe your lying eyes – it’s not what you think it is. There is an invisible character in the video who you can’t see (Mr. Fentanyl, Mr. White Supremacy) and he is the REAL perp. ” Frankly this is a tough sell in both cases. It’s very hard to overcome video evidence. If there had been security cam footage, even the OJ jury would have convicted.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    But in any case the optics were very bad – the Fentanyl was invisible but what the public saw on the video was a cop kneeing a man for many minutes while he pleaded that he couldn’t breath and fell into unconsciousness.
     
    The fact he was speaking for many minutes proves that his airway was unobstructed.
  261. @The Alarmist
    Why don’t they cut to Final Jeopardy and give his service pistol back the poor fellow?

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    In fact, give him a revolver and one bullet and let him do trial by Russian Roulette… the odds would be much better for him than trusting the justice system.

  262. @Polistra
    @Jack D


    What were they thinking?
     
    Steve has at least one post & comment thread devoted to this very question, and the reasonable consensus is that Marcia Clark thought women on the jury would sympathize with a battered wife, when in fact (black) women on the jury were hell-bent on punishing the (incidentally dead) white chick for stealing one of their high-value (black) men.

    Yeah, black women blame the white women not the black men. Meanwhile, if Marcia Clark did indeed think this above (I didn't read her book) she's an idiot.

    OTOH, is it right to call someone an idiot if they're simply responding to mass-media-induced prejudices? Hmm, probably.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @S

    Marcia Clark thought women on the jury would sympathize with a battered wife, when in fact (black) women on the jury were hell-bent on punishing the (incidentally dead) white chick for stealing one of their high-value (black) men.

    I read the book written by the lawyer who won the wrongful death civil suit against O.J. At the start of the book he made sure to lay out his confirmed ‘progressive’ credentials, ie he was of a proud Italian immigrant background and very liberal, and defined ‘progressivism’ as an ideology that at its core (paraphrasing slightly) that does not allow for a Black person to even appear to be beneath a White person in anything.

    Having got that out of the way, he then describes how they held multiple mock jury trials, and that the Black mock jurors, no matter what evidence of OJ’s guilt was presented, would always vote that O.J. was not guilty.

    It was at that point, irregardless of this lawyer’s self declared progressivism, that he decided that the only way his case would prevail (and also help ensure he would collect his fees no doubt) would be to exclude Blacks as much as possible from the jury, and to stack the jury with almost all Whites, which he proceeded to do.

    He won the case.

    He was pretty blunt about it. If that lawyer is still alive, under today’s climate, he may regret having been so straight forward.

  263. As a legal matter, the charges are for different crimes against different sovereigns.

  264. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Buzz Mohawk

    To add:

    I've performed real estate and financial transactions in two states, Colorado and Connecticut. In Colorado, I can sell property, manage an estate and other things entirely on my own, without the services of a lawyer.

    In Connecticut, the law requires me to hire a lawyer when I do real estate transactions or manage an estate -- when I do the exact same things I have done in Colorado. Then I get the bill for thousands of dollars, for some slow, unresponsive, dense, thick-headed, Ivy League douchebag who files the exact same kinds of papers I file myself in Colorado.

    Who wrote the laws in Connecticut that require me to do this? Lawyers.

    What happens in Connecticut is rent-seeking. What happens in Colorado is what anybody with a three-digit IQ can do for himself.

    Replies: @Lot, @Abe, @Jim Don Bob

    My mother died in a Canadian province. The law there says that the executor of the estate is entitled to 5% of the value of the estate. We paid a lawyer over $70k to essentially fill out forms saying she’s dead, and paying taxes. And if you contest it, the executor uses the estate’s money to fight you.

    Many of the legal transactions most people need help with can be handled using state specific forms from companies such as nolo.com. Lawyers aren’t doing this work; their secretary is.

  265. @Rob McX
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Darden seems to have been an AA hire, in effect. A more street smart black lawyer might have been better able to predict black jurors' reactions to prosecution strategy. Maybe this guy would have done better.

    https://i.redd.it/bwz0pcnhx1t11.jpg

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    • Thanks: Rob McX
  266. Anonymous[132] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    Maybe you're right - the defense will certainly argue this at trial and perhaps the jury will accept it.
    But in any case the optics were very bad - the Fentanyl was invisible but what the public saw on the video was a cop kneeing a man for many minutes while he pleaded that he couldn't breath and fell into unconsciousness.

    Chauvin's defenders are sort of in the position I mention in the thread about black attacks on Asians - we all see the video but the defenders have to say "Don't believe your lying eyes - it's not what you think it is. There is an invisible character in the video who you can't see (Mr. Fentanyl, Mr. White Supremacy) and he is the REAL perp. " Frankly this is a tough sell in both cases. It's very hard to overcome video evidence. If there had been security cam footage, even the OJ jury would have convicted.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    But in any case the optics were very bad – the Fentanyl was invisible but what the public saw on the video was a cop kneeing a man for many minutes while he pleaded that he couldn’t breath and fell into unconsciousness.

    The fact he was speaking for many minutes proves that his airway was unobstructed.

  267. @Jack D
    @Ben tillman

    No it doesn't. Before the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine", none of the provisions in the bill of rights applied to the states (although many state constitutions had their own "right to bear arms" provisions). For example, some states had established churches though this was forbidden to the Federal government by the 1st Amendment.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @ben tillman

    Objection: Non-responsive.

    The plain language of the 2A says it applies equally to the States and the Union.

    Would you care to try again?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @ben tillman

    It was the Constitution of the United States - i.e. that of the Federal government. It governed what the Federal government could and could not do. The States were separate sovereigns and had their own constitutions and could pass their own laws. It was not until much much later (the 14th Amendment) that anything in the bill of rights was thought to apply to the actions of the states themselves.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine#:~:text=Overview,clause%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.


    The 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Implicitly, it originally meant "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by the federal government" because the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

    This was perfectly well understood at the time and many state constitutions had their own "right to keep and bear arms" provisions for that reason. In fact some of those predated the one in the bill of rights.

    For example, the 7th Amendment say "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". It doesn't say in suits in federal court but that's what it meant. In fact that's what it means to this day, even though according to your (incorrect) interpretation the 7th Amendment talks about suits period and doesn't mention state or federal. In reality, if your state doesn't want to have jury trials for civil matters, or wants to set a threshold of $50,000 (Louisiana), they can, to this day. The Supreme Ct. has NEVER incorporated the 7th Amendment.

    Replies: @ben tillman

  268. @Anonymous
    @Lot


    Jack D: this isn’t a time to carefully analyze what happened, but rather to show unquestioning solidarity with a law enforcement officer dealing with a gigantic home invading drug addict in the process of ODing, but charged with premeditated murder because of anti-white animus.

    People like Derek and Kyle R. need intelligent and articulate advocates who take their side as aggressively as their persecutors.
     
    This is well put, and speaks well of your sense of justice, loyalty, and character. But it tends to give Jack D too much credit for “careful analysis.”

    If a suspect is able to speak, he is able to breath. Chauvin drew the reasonable inference that Floyd was faking the “I can’t breathe” complaints in order to try to avoid being taken in to jail. It’s a pretty typical gambit among inner city arrestees. The autopsy results corroborate the accuracy of that inference.

    Replies: @JMcG

    In any First Aid Class, one is taught that if a subject can speak, he is able to breathe on his own. Instructors stress that the maneuver formerly known as Heimlich is not to be attempted on a subject who is able to speak.
    I’m certain that Chauvin would have known this.

  269. For multiple decades, the constant slow drip of murdering OJs was not seen as a war on whites by the majority in the US. Black violent crime has been mostly perceived as a long-running nightly news feature similar to traffic accidents and tornadoes hitting rural trailer parks. After last summer’s destructive BLM looting, Antifa riots and the accompanying over-the-top anti-white bigotry of the corporate and governmental Democrat Left, traditional whites are now openly speaking and writing about these threats. It will take some time as more traditional white people adjust their thinking, but mass complacency is most likely over. The outcome for the future of American society as a result of this change is unpredictable.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @By-tor

    Sorry, but I'm afraid that the frog has been boiled. The point at which whites became aware of this was also the point at which it was too late for them to do anything about it. Good luck trying - be prepared to have the full force of the government and of the tech/media complex turned against you, you Nazi terrorist.

  270. @ben tillman
    @Jack D

    Objection: Non-responsive.

    The plain language of the 2A says it applies equally to the States and the Union.

    Would you care to try again?

    Replies: @Jack D

    It was the Constitution of the United States – i.e. that of the Federal government. It governed what the Federal government could and could not do. The States were separate sovereigns and had their own constitutions and could pass their own laws. It was not until much much later (the 14th Amendment) that anything in the bill of rights was thought to apply to the actions of the states themselves.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine#:~:text=Overview,clause%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.

    The 2nd Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Implicitly, it originally meant “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by the federal government” because the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

    This was perfectly well understood at the time and many state constitutions had their own “right to keep and bear arms” provisions for that reason. In fact some of those predated the one in the bill of rights.

    For example, the 7th Amendment say “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”. It doesn’t say in suits in federal court but that’s what it meant. In fact that’s what it means to this day, even though according to your (incorrect) interpretation the 7th Amendment talks about suits period and doesn’t mention state or federal. In reality, if your state doesn’t want to have jury trials for civil matters, or wants to set a threshold of $50,000 (Louisiana), they can, to this day. The Supreme Ct. has NEVER incorporated the 7th Amendment.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Jack D

    It uses the passive voice. That means everyone is prohibited from infringing. Your account of history (do you really think I'm unaware of the history?) is irrelevant. Parol evidence is irrelevant. The Second Amendment says no one may infringe the RKBA. That's my point.

    Further discussion is non-responsive, but I'll play along a bit. You're using parol evidence -- dubiously. There is no section titled "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution, and it includes no gneral discussion of those ten amendments in any general sense that would provide interpretive guidelines. There are ten amendments referred to elsewhere as the Bill of Rights, each of which is written independently of the others. By the way, if it is a bill of rights as you state (rather than a bill of prohibitions), the rights apply against all actors -- rights are rights after all.

    General principles of statutory construction also fail to support your contention. Note that the drafters of the Bill of Rights used the active voice elsewhere and in fact specifically prohibited Congress from taking certain actions in Amendment the First. The body of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 10) and several later amendments impose prohibitions on the States.

    Replies: @Jack D

  271. @Anon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    "Simpson was guilty, guilty, guilty, and he should have hanged until he was dead, dead, dead."

    Chad OJ the punisher, you white cucks wouldn't have turned out like the battered housewives you are had you lots of OJs.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    Chad OJ the punisher, you white cucks wouldn’t have turned out like the battered housewives you are had you lots of OJs.

    As the great Rowan Atkinson put it “I wondered then as I wonder now, if he might not have turned out to be a very different boy indeed if you had administered a few fatal beatings early on”.

  272. @Peter Johnson
    The FBI has also been brought into the Lady Gaga dog-napping/armed robbery. The suspects are seen on video to be two Black males in their early 20s. The FBI is investigating whether they are Trump supporters taking revenge for Lady Gaga singing at Biden's inauguration.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9302469/FBI-investigate-Lady-Gagas-dognapping-political-sang-Bidens-inauguration.html

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @John Johnson

    The FBI has also been brought into the Lady Gaga dog-napping/armed robbery.

    But of course! The FBI has plenty of time on its hands now that they’ve dealt with Hunter Biden’s laptop.

  273. @By-tor
    For multiple decades, the constant slow drip of murdering OJs was not seen as a war on whites by the majority in the US. Black violent crime has been mostly perceived as a long-running nightly news feature similar to traffic accidents and tornadoes hitting rural trailer parks. After last summer's destructive BLM looting, Antifa riots and the accompanying over-the-top anti-white bigotry of the corporate and governmental Democrat Left, traditional whites are now openly speaking and writing about these threats. It will take some time as more traditional white people adjust their thinking, but mass complacency is most likely over. The outcome for the future of American society as a result of this change is unpredictable.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Sorry, but I’m afraid that the frog has been boiled. The point at which whites became aware of this was also the point at which it was too late for them to do anything about it. Good luck trying – be prepared to have the full force of the government and of the tech/media complex turned against you, you Nazi terrorist.

  274. @Peter Johnson
    The FBI has also been brought into the Lady Gaga dog-napping/armed robbery. The suspects are seen on video to be two Black males in their early 20s. The FBI is investigating whether they are Trump supporters taking revenge for Lady Gaga singing at Biden's inauguration.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9302469/FBI-investigate-Lady-Gagas-dognapping-political-sang-Bidens-inauguration.html

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @John Johnson

    The FBI has also been brought into the Lady Gaga dog-napping/armed robbery. The suspects are seen on video to be two Black males in their early 20s. The FBI is investigating whether they are Trump supporters taking revenge for Lady Gaga singing at Biden’s inauguration.

    I was going to LOL your comment until I saw that it wasn’t parody.

    I guess we are already into Biden’s New Age of Equality. Deny the obvious and blame Trump voters.

    Looks like the British aren’t buying it. Here is the top rated comment:

    well sure it was….two white guys in MAGA hats right? maybe Jussie Smollet could help give a description.

    577:9 up/down votes.

    Of course most US media doesn’t allow comments. Can’t be letting the proles disrupt the circus with their observations of reality.

  275. @Polistra
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)


    I’ve endorsed plenty of restaurants in my time, but have never established one.
     
    Come on now. That's not what the Establishment Clause is about. It's about the fact that government is not permitted to make any law respecting a religious establishment. It has long (and reasonably) been held to indicate that government may not establish its own religion as well, and the language is clear enough in that regard. But the essence of it is that government can't distinguish among and between religions.

    I'd personally go further and say that this means the government can't grant tax-free status to religious organizations--particularly since in the process it most definitely decides what is a legitimate religion (say, the Catholic Church) and what isn't (Polistrarians for example, which has been held up as nothing more than an attempted tax dodge. Can you imagine?).

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Come on now. That’s not what the Establishment Clause is about. It’s about the fact that government is not permitted to make any law respecting a religious establishment. It has long (and reasonably) been held to indicate that government may not establish its own religion as well, and the language is clear enough in that regard. But the essence of it is that government can’t distinguish among and between religions.

    I’d personally go further and say that this means the government can’t grant tax-free status to religious organizations–particularly since in the process it most definitely decides what is a legitimate religion (say, the Catholic Church) and what isn’t (Polistrarians for example, which has been held up as nothing more than an attempted tax dodge. Can you imagine?).

    No, this is neoliberal claptrap. Did you even read Steve’s comment about Connecticut and mine about the established religions of Massachusetts and Rhode Island?

    It meant that there would be no “Church of the United States” for which the head of State would be the titular head as with the Church of England. It did not mean that government had to treat jokes the same as actual bona fide religions.

    Also, Churches have never been taxed by the United States government. It has been long held since the early Republic that it would constitute a burden on religion. You’d “argue” something both ahistorical and silly, and based in postmodern nonsense that no Founder would recognize.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    The Founders were Deists at best, and couldn't really conceive of a principled atheism. We're (most of us) slightly more evolved in the present time. The rest of your remarks are just assertions without benefit of support.

  276. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jack D


    I don’t know exactly what they SHOULD do, but I do know what they SHOULDN’T do – kill the guy.

    I’m not an expert on police tactics but there should be some way to effectuate an arrest without killing the guy.

     

    You're making my point.

    You have no experience with taking a large intoxicated street criminal into custody - your only response is "DO SOMETHING! NO, NOT THAT! DO THE OTHER THING! NO, NOT THAT EITHER!"

    Given that the U.S. black population is over 48,000,000 souls, and this population hits high above its numbers in terms of crime and therefore represents an outsized proportion of annual police interactions, I'd say police are doing a really good job. With enough interactions some freak events are just going to occur. That's math, not racism.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    This particular death may be a freak event but look all around the world and you’ll see that riots are quite often set off as a result of a bad experience between a cop and some kind of disaffected minority. It’s even happened in Israel. Twice.

  277. @Jack D
    The legalistic reason is the concept of "dual sovereigns". We have TWO governments and two sets of laws in the US - the state (all local governments derive their authority from the state government) and the federal.

    So (according to the SCOTUS) when you violate both a Federal law and a State law you are not being tried twice for the "same offense" - you are being tried for two separate offenses. Just like, if you kill a DEA agent in Mexico and are tried in Mexico and then picked up by the US, it's not double jeopardy because the SAME sovereign is not trying you twice.

    Contrary to what Steve says, the test cases have not involved unpopular classes of defendants like cops. In the most recent S. Ct. decision, Terance Gamble was pulled over by a cop for driving while black driving with a damaged headlight. Smelling marijuana, the officer searched Gamble’s car, where he found a loaded 9-mm handgun. Since Gamble had previously been convicted of second-degree robbery, his possession of the handgun violated an Alabama law providing that violent felons could not own guns . Federal prosecutors indicted him for the same instance of possession under a similar federal law. The Court ruled 7-2 that this was OK. Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented. So you can see that the Court did not split on ideological lines nor was this a close decision.

    That being said, this case was decided in 2019. Maybe in the era of Floyd people would look at this case differently. Back in those ancient times (2019) no one had any sympathy for armed black felons.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Hibernian, @Federalist, @James B. Shearer, @Marty

    Predictably, Gamble got an outrageous sentence of one (1) year from the racist state of Alabama.

  278. @Jack D
    @ben tillman

    It was the Constitution of the United States - i.e. that of the Federal government. It governed what the Federal government could and could not do. The States were separate sovereigns and had their own constitutions and could pass their own laws. It was not until much much later (the 14th Amendment) that anything in the bill of rights was thought to apply to the actions of the states themselves.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine#:~:text=Overview,clause%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.


    The 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Implicitly, it originally meant "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by the federal government" because the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

    This was perfectly well understood at the time and many state constitutions had their own "right to keep and bear arms" provisions for that reason. In fact some of those predated the one in the bill of rights.

    For example, the 7th Amendment say "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". It doesn't say in suits in federal court but that's what it meant. In fact that's what it means to this day, even though according to your (incorrect) interpretation the 7th Amendment talks about suits period and doesn't mention state or federal. In reality, if your state doesn't want to have jury trials for civil matters, or wants to set a threshold of $50,000 (Louisiana), they can, to this day. The Supreme Ct. has NEVER incorporated the 7th Amendment.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    It uses the passive voice. That means everyone is prohibited from infringing. Your account of history (do you really think I’m unaware of the history?) is irrelevant. Parol evidence is irrelevant. The Second Amendment says no one may infringe the RKBA. That’s my point.

    Further discussion is non-responsive, but I’ll play along a bit. You’re using parol evidence — dubiously. There is no section titled “Bill of Rights” in the Constitution, and it includes no gneral discussion of those ten amendments in any general sense that would provide interpretive guidelines. There are ten amendments referred to elsewhere as the Bill of Rights, each of which is written independently of the others. By the way, if it is a bill of rights as you state (rather than a bill of prohibitions), the rights apply against all actors — rights are rights after all.

    General principles of statutory construction also fail to support your contention. Note that the drafters of the Bill of Rights used the active voice elsewhere and in fact specifically prohibited Congress from taking certain actions in Amendment the First. The body of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 10) and several later amendments impose prohibitions on the States.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @ben tillman

    I'm not making an argument. I'm just telling you what every other Constitutional scholar for the last 200 years has believed. Maybe they all got it wrong and you're the only one who is right, but I doubt it.

    As a practical matter, the end result is the same. As a result of the incorporation doctrine, most (but not all) of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, has now been ruled as applying to the states so whether it should have been all along is moot.

  279. @Redman
    @Sean

    Chauvin was following the MPD protocol for dealing with people having delirium episodes. This was readily available online until the MPD took it down after the Floyd situation.

    Replies: @res

    This comment from then includes the link along with an excerpt of the relevant section.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/social-distancing-in-minneapolis/#comment-3926749

    It looks like the link is still there, but they removed the relevant section 5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS.
    http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300

    The new version consists of variations of

    While MN Statute includes Choke Holds as legally permissible in Deadly Force situations, MPD officers are prohibited from using such techniques (see the Prohibition on Neck Restraints and Choke Holds section in P&P 5-302).

    It appears the change was a result of changes in the policy.

    If anyone doubts the accuracy of my account or the excerpt I gave, here is an archive page from May 2020.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200527130744/http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300

    P.S. The troll smackdown following that comment was fun.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @res

    That the police can shoot someone under certain circumstances is not a license for police to kneecap people who are being annoying. Similarly, the armory of police techniques included what was used on Floyd, but at first blush the regulations clearly ruled it out in those circumstances and the duration was also unconscionable.


    https://epmgaa.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2014/08/07/erga_t580.png?8f1b5874916776826eb17d7e67de7278c987ca33

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner
    Eric Garner's last words, "I can't breathe" were a BLM slogan and chant against police brutality since Garner's death in 2014, and that is likely why Floyd used it. However, claiming you have pains in your chest and can't breath (are having a heart attack) has always been a very common career criminal's ploy on being arrested.

    Mr Floyd said he could not breath immediately after being picked up off the ground by police after he fell (handcuffed) while they were trying to get him in their vehicle. So he was standing handcuffed and saying he could not breath long before any chokehold, knee, or face down maximal restraint technique was applied to him by officer Chauvin. On the last attempt to get Floyd in the vehicle he again stiffened up and made it impossible for the cops to get him inside. Then he fell again, the prosecution say Chauvin more or less put him down.

    Because the handcuffs were on Floyd there was no justification for Chauvin then using the maximal restraint technique as Chauvin well knew. That he used the technique on a handcuffed man and kept using it for several minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying on his chest is the basis for the prosecution charging him with felony murder. According to the prosecution, the technique was the assault and because Floyd died as Chauvin committed an assault, it amounts to felony murder. The defence would be making a big mistake to concentrate on showing that Floyd died from Fentanyl, that doesn't really matter with felony murder.

  280. @Dieter Kief
    @Curmudgeon


    Chauvin was a trainer for the MPD.
     
    Oh.

    Source?

    Replies: @res

    Dieter, you’re a good commenter. Why didn’t you look for it yourself? This was easy to find.
    Derek Chauvin Trained New Officers Despite Receiving Complaints At Over Double The Rate Of Average Officers
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/10/derek-chauvin-complaints-police-minneapolis-george-floyd/

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @res

    Compliments back res! And thanks for helping me out here! - I did actually look for myself before I posted my kind request.

    I think this detail might help to explain why Derek Chauvin acted so demonstratively. Something that was noticed by many - but most likely misinterpreted most of the time as boldness (or - not least around here ... as dumbness (an as cruel too)). So I think, this information is indeed an important piece in the Chauvin and the other officer's behavior puzzle.

  281. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Polistra


    Come on now. That’s not what the Establishment Clause is about. It’s about the fact that government is not permitted to make any law respecting a religious establishment. It has long (and reasonably) been held to indicate that government may not establish its own religion as well, and the language is clear enough in that regard. But the essence of it is that government can’t distinguish among and between religions.

    I’d personally go further and say that this means the government can’t grant tax-free status to religious organizations–particularly since in the process it most definitely decides what is a legitimate religion (say, the Catholic Church) and what isn’t (Polistrarians for example, which has been held up as nothing more than an attempted tax dodge. Can you imagine?).
     
    No, this is neoliberal claptrap. Did you even read Steve's comment about Connecticut and mine about the established religions of Massachusetts and Rhode Island?

    It meant that there would be no "Church of the United States" for which the head of State would be the titular head as with the Church of England. It did not mean that government had to treat jokes the same as actual bona fide religions.

    Also, Churches have never been taxed by the United States government. It has been long held since the early Republic that it would constitute a burden on religion. You'd "argue" something both ahistorical and silly, and based in postmodern nonsense that no Founder would recognize.

    Replies: @Polistra

    The Founders were Deists at best, and couldn’t really conceive of a principled atheism. We’re (most of us) slightly more evolved in the present time. The rest of your remarks are just assertions without benefit of support.

  282. @res
    @Dieter Kief

    Dieter, you're a good commenter. Why didn't you look for it yourself? This was easy to find.
    Derek Chauvin Trained New Officers Despite Receiving Complaints At Over Double The Rate Of Average Officers
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/10/derek-chauvin-complaints-police-minneapolis-george-floyd/

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Compliments back res! And thanks for helping me out here! – I did actually look for myself before I posted my kind request.

    I think this detail might help to explain why Derek Chauvin acted so demonstratively. Something that was noticed by many – but most likely misinterpreted most of the time as boldness (or – not least around here … as dumbness (an as cruel too)). So I think, this information is indeed an important piece in the Chauvin and the other officer’s behavior puzzle.

  283. @ben tillman
    @Jack D

    It uses the passive voice. That means everyone is prohibited from infringing. Your account of history (do you really think I'm unaware of the history?) is irrelevant. Parol evidence is irrelevant. The Second Amendment says no one may infringe the RKBA. That's my point.

    Further discussion is non-responsive, but I'll play along a bit. You're using parol evidence -- dubiously. There is no section titled "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution, and it includes no gneral discussion of those ten amendments in any general sense that would provide interpretive guidelines. There are ten amendments referred to elsewhere as the Bill of Rights, each of which is written independently of the others. By the way, if it is a bill of rights as you state (rather than a bill of prohibitions), the rights apply against all actors -- rights are rights after all.

    General principles of statutory construction also fail to support your contention. Note that the drafters of the Bill of Rights used the active voice elsewhere and in fact specifically prohibited Congress from taking certain actions in Amendment the First. The body of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 10) and several later amendments impose prohibitions on the States.

    Replies: @Jack D

    I’m not making an argument. I’m just telling you what every other Constitutional scholar for the last 200 years has believed. Maybe they all got it wrong and you’re the only one who is right, but I doubt it.

    As a practical matter, the end result is the same. As a result of the incorporation doctrine, most (but not all) of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, has now been ruled as applying to the states so whether it should have been all along is moot.

  284. @Hypnotoad666
    I can't imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    But sadly. the administration of Justice is yet another institution that has been totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists and will stop at nothing to ruin the people they are against.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Art Deco, @Louis Renault, @Lurker, @Paul Jolliffe, @Paul Jolliffe

    The Romans (maybe) claimed “fiat justitia, ruat caelum” – “let justice be done though the heavens fall”.

    If so, then they were braver, smarter, and more honest than we are.

  285. @Hypnotoad666
    I can't imagine how any impartial jury watching the whole body cam footage could convict Chauvin of anything at all.

    But sadly. the administration of Justice is yet another institution that has been totally corrupted by the left. They have the hearts of fascists and will stop at nothing to ruin the people they are against.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @Art Deco, @Louis Renault, @Lurker, @Paul Jolliffe, @Paul Jolliffe

    By the way, I predicted with 100% certainty this very development here months ago.

  286. @James B. Shearer
    @Nachum

    "I’d like to see a state try to bring charges against someone who was cleared at the federal level."

    Sergey Aleynikov.

    "... He is currently appealing that conviction on double jeopardy grounds. .."

    Replies: @Nachum

    Well, good luck to him. I guess I should say that I’d like to see it happen to a member of a favored class, nudge nudge.

  287. @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    Is it a reasonable use of force if you take someone who is complaining of being unable to breath and pin him face down for over 8 minutes until well after he passes out?
     
    Usually when a suspect is able to complain that he is unable to breathe—especially over the course of many minutes—it is good evidence he in fact can breath and is just lying in an attempt to get out of arrest. Breathing is typically necessary for speech. If you are talking, you are breathing.

    While in general, kneeling on a suspect is a technique that is taught in police academies and is not generally dangerous to a healthy person, the fact that Chauvin knew that Floyd was having breathing difficulties
     
    Chauvin didn’t “know” that Floyd was “having breathing difficulties.” Floyd’s ability to talk showed the opposite and that is the exactly the inference Chauvin drew.

    and the fact that he kept kneeling until well after Floyd had become unconscious may change what would have been a reasonable action to an unreasonable one.
     
    Chauvin didn’t think Floyd was unconscious. Even if he did, he had no reason to think it was because of the neck restraint, which didn’t impede Floyd’s airway or the flow of blood to his brain.

    Chauvin had, at some point (I don’t know when the other cops arrived) plenty of help on the scene and could have tried another method of restraining Floyd when he kept complaining of not being able to breath but for whatever reason he refused to try anything different
     
    The reason was that Floyd’s ability to keep talking over several minutes showed to the officers that Floyd was able to breath. The autopsy corroborates their inference.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “The reason was that Floyd’s ability to keep talking over several minutes showed to the officers that Floyd was able to breath.”

    https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-4186

    https://www.calibrepress.com/2020/06/screaming-their-last-breath-why-first-responders-must-never-ignore-the-words-i-cant-breathe/

  288. @res
    @Redman

    This comment from then includes the link along with an excerpt of the relevant section.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/social-distancing-in-minneapolis/#comment-3926749

    It looks like the link is still there, but they removed the relevant section 5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS.
    http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300

    The new version consists of variations of


    While MN Statute includes Choke Holds as legally permissible in Deadly Force situations, MPD officers are prohibited from using such techniques (see the Prohibition on Neck Restraints and Choke Holds section in P&P 5-302).
     
    It appears the change was a result of changes in the policy.

    If anyone doubts the accuracy of my account or the excerpt I gave, here is an archive page from May 2020.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200527130744/http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300

    P.S. The troll smackdown following that comment was fun.

    Replies: @Sean

    That the police can shoot someone under certain circumstances is not a license for police to kneecap people who are being annoying. Similarly, the armory of police techniques included what was used on Floyd, but at first blush the regulations clearly ruled it out in those circumstances and the duration was also unconscionable.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner
    Eric Garner’s last words, “I can’t breathe” were a BLM slogan and chant against police brutality since Garner’s death in 2014, and that is likely why Floyd used it. However, claiming you have pains in your chest and can’t breath (are having a heart attack) has always been a very common career criminal’s ploy on being arrested.

    Mr Floyd said he could not breath immediately after being picked up off the ground by police after he fell (handcuffed) while they were trying to get him in their vehicle. So he was standing handcuffed and saying he could not breath long before any chokehold, knee, or face down maximal restraint technique was applied to him by officer Chauvin. On the last attempt to get Floyd in the vehicle he again stiffened up and made it impossible for the cops to get him inside. Then he fell again, the prosecution say Chauvin more or less put him down.

    Because the handcuffs were on Floyd there was no justification for Chauvin then using the maximal restraint technique as Chauvin well knew. That he used the technique on a handcuffed man and kept using it for several minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying on his chest is the basis for the prosecution charging him with felony murder. According to the prosecution, the technique was the assault and because Floyd died as Chauvin committed an assault, it amounts to felony murder. The defence would be making a big mistake to concentrate on showing that Floyd died from Fentanyl, that doesn’t really matter with felony murder.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement