6/17/2020 The day that Black Lives Matter & the media lynched an innocent man

@Brandon9000,

Here are the facts:

1. A Black man died in police custody after an officer knelt on his neck for more than 8 minutes. During this time this Black man told the officer he was in physical distress and in danger of dying. The police officer ignored his pleas. Other officers were involved and looked on doing nothing.

2. The prosecutor choose to bring charges against the police after there was political outrage from the African American community.

3. There were protests. Many of the protests were peaceful. Some of these protests have included rioting, looting and violence.

4. Many of the people calling for the prosecution of these police officers are liberal political officials who have a clearly political bias.

5. Many of the people calling for the prosecution of these police officers are career law enforcement and legal professionals without a political bias.

These are all of the facts I see expressed on either side of the issue. Are there any other facts that you would like me to include?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Given the facts, here are my opinions....

1. My opinion is that actions of these police officers were outrageous and that they are likely guilty of second degree murder.

2. I believe strongly that these police officers deserve a fair trial with all of the due process rights afforded to a criminal defendant.

3. I believe that our justice system provides protection for the rights of defendants even in cases such as this. The defendant will have to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by an unanimous jury. The jury will be screened for bias by the defense team. The defendants will be able to present their case and cross-examine witnesses. It is a pretty good system (not perfect, but its what we have).

4. I believe it is appropriate for peaceful political protests to influence the decision to prosecute alleged crimes. The prosecutors work for the public and are accountable to the public.

5. I condemn the acts of violence done in the name of the protests. I don't think this should effect the decision to prosecute either way.

6. I believe that once the charges are filed, the process should be isolated from any political protest. I accept that this isn't perfect, but there are processes to do this including jury screening, judge instructions and even sequestration.

6. I would like a guilty verdict after a fair trial. If there is a "not guilty" verdict after a fair trial, I will accept it.

1 Reply

Here are my questions for the conservatives here....

1. Do you agree that these police officers (or police officers in general) should be held accountable for alleged crimes, particularly when they result in death?

2. Do you agree that when there is political disagreement, that the legal process should be followed to resolve them?

3. If we aren't going to follow the legal process as it stands, what should we do? Do you think that police officers accused of a crime should be ignored?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I think that when it is clear that someone did not commit any crime, the left should be ignored when they demand that they be prosecuted.

I have no objection to prosecutions when it is clear that a crime was committed.

The left should also be prevented from getting innocent people fired from their jobs.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Here are the facts:
1. A Black man died in police custody after an officer knelt on his neck for more than 8 minutes. During this time this Black man told the officer he was in physical distress and in danger of dying. The police officer ignored his pleas. Other officers were involved and looked on doing nothing.

That is incorrect. Those are not the facts. The other officers did not look on and do nothing.

One of the officers verbally objected to the officer in charge, and suggested that they stop holding the guy in that position.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. My opinion is that actions of these police officers were outrageous and that they are likely guilty of second degree murder.

Second degree murder requires intent to harm. Do you have any evidence of malicious intent?

How are rookies in their first week on the job, who object to a senior officer and are overruled, complicit in that senior officer's decisions?

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

. I can point out that a problem exists without having a solution.

Absolutely!

0 Replies

@oralloy,

1. I accept your correction about second degree murder. It varies state by state, but it looks like in Minnesota maybe third degree murder is a more appropriate charge. After reading more, it looks like you may be correct.

2. My factual statement is factual even if "one of the officers verbally objected". There were officers that looked on.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

How is a rookie in his first week on the job, who objects to a senior officer and is overruled, complicit in that senior officer's decisions?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

That sounds like a valid argument for his defense attorney to raise. I am sure the jury will consider it if the charges against this particular officer make it to the jury.

The legal system gives a number of rights to a defendant. Each officer will have the right to present their evidence and make their case

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I take it you are not going to to defend your position that the first-week rookies committed a crime?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I take it you are not going to to defend your position that the first-week rookies committed a crime?

I don't think I took that position. If I did, then I probably would want to retract it (depending on the facts). This certainly should be presented as part of his defense. Of course this is up to the prosecutors, the grand jury, the judge and the jury (if it gets that far).

I don't believe that all cops are guilty any more than I believe all cops are innocent. We a legal system that should do its job.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I think anytime a policeman kills an unarmed man or woman he should be charged and have to face a jury.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Why should police officers be prevented from defending themselves when someone tries to kill them with their bare hands?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You really don’t understand sub judice, or to debate anything honestly.

If you didn’t put words in people’s mouths you’d have nothing to argue against.

I don’t know how your system works, over here the CPS decides whether a case should go to trial, not just police, but all cases.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

It is similar here. Prosecutors are the ones who decide whether or not to bring charges.

The defense can ask the judge to dismiss the charges without a trial, but such a request will be granted only if there is very clear evidence that the accused is innocent.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Here are my questions for the conservatives here....

1. Do you agree that these police officers (or police officers in general) should be held accountable for alleged crimes, particularly when they result in death?

2. Do you agree that when there is political disagreement, that the legal process should be followed to resolve them?

3. If we aren't going to follow the legal process as it stands, what should we do? Do you think that police officers accused of a crime should be ignored?

"Yes" to #1 and #2 and "no" to #3.

To be clear, I believe that what Chauvin did to Floyd was murder and a particularly cruel torture/murder at that. It is conceivable that there is some fact I don't know which would alter my perception, but it seems unlikely.

I also believe that it is quite possible that Chauvin and the other police who were there will receive less than justice because the judge and jury are afraid of the mob. There seems to be more of a question as to the culpability of the other officers who were present. One had only been on the force for four days. I think it likely that they will be judged more harshly than other people in similar situations.

I also think that we don't know up to the present moment whether the murder was motivated by racism or not. Time will tell. I do not believe that there is systemic racism. I believe that at most, Chauvin is a racist, although, as I said, even that isn't known at the moment I write this.

I also find it interesting that other people similarly murdered in a particularly unfair way, even black people, haven't produced similar outrage, especially retired police captain David Dorn who was shot fatally in the head during the Floyd riots outside the store of a friend, which he was trying to protect from looters.

I furthermore don't think that mob vigilante justice is the solution to anything.

0 Replies

Some Portland Protesters Attempt to Set Fire to Building Housing Police Precinct

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/some-portland-protesters-attempt-to-set-fire-to-building-housing-police-precinct/

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. I accept your correction about second degree murder. It varies state by state, but it looks like in Minnesota maybe third degree murder is a more appropriate charge. After reading more, it looks like you may be correct.

KTSP St Paul wrote:

this charge requires prosecutors to prove Chauvin caused Floyd's death while committing or trying to commit a felony -- in this case, third-degree assault. Prosecutors don't have to prove that Chauvin was the sole cause of Floyd's death -- only that his conduct was a "substantial causal factor."

https://kstp.com/news/explaining-the-charges-in-state-vs-derek-chauvin-trial/6039310/

It appears that my correction was in error, and the second degree murder charges are viable the way Minnesota law is written.

0 Replies

6/17/2020 The day that Black Lives Matter & the media lynched an innocent man

Quick Links

My Account

able2know