The US policing crisis thread

[Eamonnca1]

Where are the 2A gun nuts who promised they'd rise up to overthrow any totalitarian regime that took over the USA?

[Main Street]

This is bizarre in the extreme and something ill never understand about America and why it's allowed to happen.

The other thing I can't understand (and I'm not victim blaming here) is resisting arrest! If you are black and live in a society were the police are virtually allowed to do what they want, why would you resist arrest?

Though not resisting arrest will protect you either, seen footage of a young lad (13?) being chased, he dropped his gun (why he had a gun is another question), put his hands up but they shot him dead anyways.

It's a crazy place to live

If a cop is screaming "stop resisting" it's not evidence that the victim is resisting. It's one of the tactics they use to trump up charges. They'll throw your hands behind your back before you've had time to realize what's going on, and claim that you're resisting whether you are or not. There are states where you can be arrested on the absurd charge of "resisting arrest" and no other charge.

There's also a video where they took a guy in, tied him to a chair, tortured him with a tazer, and screamed "stop resisting" at him.

Police dog chewing your leg off? "Stop resisting!"

For the most part should a black person try to flee from an arrest, they're not resisting an arrest, they are resisting what inevitably happens to a black person after the arrest, after they're thrown into the grinder that is the US 'justice' system.

[Eamonnca1]

The brave men in blue have decided to keep the people of Vacaville safe by beating the crap out of a 16 year-old child with autism who had the audacity to try to defend himself when an older kid picked a fight with him.

https://fox40.com/news/local-news/video-vacaville-police-officer-shoves-hits-teenage-boy-with-autism/

[Eamonnca1]

[Eamonnca1]

DA charges Danville officer in deadly 2018 shooting of unarmed man

"Becton said her decision to charge Hall had nothing to do with the George Floyd case. She said the reason it took over two years to file charges against Hall is because of a "backlog of prior law enforcement involved fatal incidents my office is investigating."

https://www.ktvu.com/news/da-to-charge-danville-officer-with-deadly-2018-shooting-of-unarmed-man

If that's true, it means the cops are so out of control that the justice system can't cope with the sheer mountain of police criminality that's out there.

Update: He's turned himself in. The blackguard.

[David McKeown]

Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes weren't enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. That's not to say I think he's not guilty just that I don't understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.

[whitey]

Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes weren't enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. That's not to say I think he's not guilty just that I don't understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.

The best political commentator is a guy called Michael Smerconish.  Definitely listen to his podcasts

On his show a couple of weeks ago he brought up that very point and iirc had an expert discuss it with him.

His argument was that it could end up like the George Zimmerman trial-prosecutor overreached and went for the bigger charge, when the lesser one would have brought almost identical jail time

[Eamonnca1]

Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes weren't enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. That's not to say I think he's not guilty just that I don't understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.

The underlying problems are money in politics (which gives the gun lobby the ability to overrule the 90% of people who support common sense gun laws) and the undemocratic nature of America's institutions, like the senate and the electoral college. These are issues that are being worked on quietly, but will take time to fix. Once they are, only then will we start to see some laws passed that actually reflect the will of the people. So it's not so much a case of "never," it's more like it's just a long haul.

[smelmoth]

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. That's not to say I think he's not guilty just that I don't understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.

This is very easy to explain.

It's a simple question of misinformation.

You are misinformed that second degree murder requires intent to take life.

It's that simple

[smelmoth]

Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes weren't enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. That's not to say I think he's not guilty just that I don't understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.

The best political commentator is a guy called Michael Smerconish.  Definitely listen to his podcasts

On his show a couple of weeks ago he brought up that very point and iirc had an expert discuss it with him.

His argument was that it could end up like the George Zimmerman trial-prosecutor overreached and went for the bigger charge, when the lesser one would have brought almost identical jail time

This is also very easy to explain.

It's a simple question of misinformation.

You are misinformed on the meaning of the following words; "best" and "expert".

I wouldn't be terribly enamoured by your understanding of a political commentator or the law and its practice.

Prosecutors in the Chauvin case didn't drop the lesser charge and just go for the higher one they left all 3 on the charge sheet and delivered all 3. If Chauvin's team want to find a technicality they need to find one on all 3 charges. His appeal prospects are not nil but they are very, very low. He has to find some way of getting round the fact that a kid recorded his crime. It's a poor enough starting point

[David McKeown]

I probably should have been clearer. Had the trial been held here the choice would have been between straight murder and manslaughter with no variants or degrees. The difference essentially being down to whether or not the Jury was convinced that Chauvin had the necessary intention to kill or cause really serious harm. If he did it was Murder if it didn't it was manslaughter (assuming the jury was convinced his actions led to Floyds death). Both charges may have been on the indictment but they didn't need to be. The Jury would have been told if they weren't convinced of murder they may find as an alternative manslaughter. If however they were satisfied it was murder they need not consider manslaughter.

The procedure in the states is entirely different but judgements like this highlight one of the many flaws in the system. Here if you have inconsistent verdicts it's clear evidence of an unsafe conviction and the case will be retried.  For example a man is accused of dangerous driving and driving without insurance, his defence is i didn't have insurance but I wasn't driving. It would be inconsistent for a jury to convict him of dangerous driving but not of no insurance and would almost certainly be immediate grounds for a retrial.

As smelmouth has highlighted that's not the case in Minnesota. Each charge is to be considered separately and errors need to have been shown in respect of each. The inconsistency of verdicts is not necessarily grounds for an automatic retrial but may form part of an appeal.

In NI it's estimated we average one miscarriage of justice a month in the crown court. That's with the huge amount of procedural safeguards we have over here. I often shudder to think how many must occur in the states with fewer protections.

[David McKeown]

Speaking of inconsistent verdicts and this is maybe more one for the WTF thread but.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/04/23/extinction-rebellion-protesters-cleared-despite-no-defence-in-law-14464046/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.link&fbclid=IwAR3h_gQTIfhF9749EKWoNvjTuwwD73HuxbEIpEcAI5EhewTpvoCK_os352I

[whitey]

Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes weren't enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. That's not to say I think he's not guilty just that I don't understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.

The best political commentator is a guy called Michael Smerconish.  Definitely listen to his podcasts

On his show a couple of weeks ago he brought up that very point and iirc had an expert discuss it with him.

His argument was that it could end up like the George Zimmerman trial-prosecutor overreached and went for the bigger charge, when the lesser one would have brought almost identical jail time

This is also very easy to explain.

It's a simple question of misinformation.

You are misinformed on the meaning of the following words; "best" and "expert".

I wouldn't be terribly enamoured by your understanding of a political commentator or the law and its practice.

Prosecutors in the Chauvin case didn't drop the lesser charge and just go for the higher one they left all 3 on the charge sheet and delivered all 3. If Chauvin's team want to find a technicality they need to find one on all 3 charges. His appeal prospects are not nil but they are very, very low. He has to find some way of getting round the fact that a kid recorded his crime. It's a poor enough starting point

This could very easily be thrown out on appeal due to Maxine Waters and Joe Biden's public comments in the days leading up to the verdict.......the JUDGE in the case said that.

Is he enough of an expert for you?

Don't be surprised to see this go to a retrial

)Also the decision not to move the case could be called into question as would the decision not to sequester the jury)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/derek-chauvin-verdict-overturned-appeal/story%3fid=77213609

[J70]

Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes weren't enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. That's not to say I think he's not guilty just that I don't understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.

I assumed (and I'm open to correction) that being guilty of the murder charge automatically made him guilty of manslaughter i.e. murder = manslaughter + intent. I find it very hard to believe that if the two charges were mutually exclusive under MN law that the judge would not have instructed the jury to that effect.

[whitey]

Did Sandy Hook not effectively end the debate on gun control?  I mean if wholesale changes weren't enacted as a response to that tragedy they likely never will be.

I also have serious concerns over the safety of the verdicts in the Chauvin case. That's not to say I think he's not guilty just that I don't understand how a jury can convict for murder in the second degree which requires them that Chauvin had an intent to kill but also convict of manslaughter which required them to find he did not have an intent to kill.

I assumed (and I'm open to correction) that being guilty of the murder charge automatically made him guilty of manslaughter i.e. murder = manslaughter + intent. I find it very hard to believe that if the two charges were mutually exclusive under MN law that the judge would not have instructed the jury to that effect.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jonathanturley.org/2021/03/19/the-domino-effect-how-all-four-cases-in-the-death-of-george-floyd-could-collapse-with-a-chauvin-acquittal/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jonathanturley.org/2021/04/21/the-chauvin-appeal-how-the-comments-of-the-court-and-the-prosecutors-could-raise-challenges-going-forward/amp/

Smerconish had this guy on last week.  Well worth a read