The Derek Chauvin Trial

I don't know who you think you are arguing with, but I agree with this.

Having armed police available in violent situations is important in any community. Social workers and mental health workers often request an armed police escort when dealing with potentially violent situations.

I agree that we should look for alternatives particularly in cases of mental health issues.

I just read somewhere that even though they have the same trial, they can receive individual verdicts, and the joint trial is due to the significant overlap of information.

But I agree that it will be more difficult to obtain a convicition on the other three.

If they are going to use the defense of they were simply following their master then they will nave go on the stand and answer Prosecution questions. These will be questions to further convict Chauvin in this trial as well as future and past trials (closes down retrieve and appeals).

Look, I want to apologize for using this phrase: "my 'Disarm the Police' campaign." But not for posting the article about the app. I heard it on the radio, it sounded pretty interesting, and I shared it.



Of course snood is absolutely correct and I really thought that anyone who reads my posts and is familiar with this thread would recognize the ironic intent of my remark — no one is saying "disarm the police". It should strike anyone immediately as being absurd.

I know that sarcasm and irony don't seem translate well in text but my real mistake was not considering what would happen if maxdancona showed up (as usual), misinterpreted someone's post (as usual), and responded to something that was never seriously proposed by anybody (as usual).


Where did you read or hear this claim? Who has made that a demand?

Here now Hightor. Without me here, this thread would be silly... an echo chamber of liberal talking points. Maybe that is what people want. Sorry.

It seems to upset you more when I agree with the liberal narrative than when I disagree. I have always found that amusing.

Let's see what we agree on...

1) Communities (including minority community) need a strong police force. This sometimes means the use of force.

2) There have been clear abuses of power by police. Communities are right to demand accountability and policy change.

3) Police officers need support to do their jobs. They need clear rules of engagement. They need resources. They need to support of their community.

4) There may be cases where responding to certain situation without the use of armed police officers would help. Communities should build up the resources to support this. (In my opinion this would work best in conjuction with police and local government).

Do we agree on these points?

There was a rookie who asked if they should turn Floyd. Chauvin said no. The question isn't one or orders, but rather, why didn't they stop Chauvin?

For the (2?) Rookies, I would think that the defenses are more along the lines of:
- As a rookie I have received only basic training
- As a training officer I believed Chauvin knew much more than me, including what holds were safe
- Chauvin exuded calmness and confidence in his decision making, reinforcing that he knew more than me, and that it was safe
- as a result, I believed that there was no risk to Floyd's life

Additional arguments could be:
- I didn't believe he had much pressure on his neck, as he was squatting (I'm not saying this is a good argument - but perhaps the one furtherest from Chauvin might use it)
- they told me multiple people complain so that you loosen your grip and they kick out
- as a rookie, I felt I need to take this at face value from much more experienced officers
- etc

Ie. It very likely won't be an argument of following orders, but rather, one of belief in what was the appropriate use of force (as it is Chauvin's use of force that lead to Floyd's death, rather than orders issued by Chauvin).

Chauvin was in a position to know that his deeds would or could lead to Floyds death, and it is unreasonable to think otherwise. Look at the above, and see if you can come to a belief beyond reasonable doubt that rookies would similarly know that they were likely to kill Floyd (even recklessly or unintentionally)

They will have to go on the stand and answer questions the prosecutor present to them. I do not presume to know the whole story or how it will play out. Trials.can be.strange.

Uh, yeah, that should go without saying.

One guy is a Laotian. He is not one of the rookies. Laotian are as a people, good and not a violent, hostile society. One of the rookies is older, in his 30's. Wants to be a cop.

I just want them to get on TBE stand, answer the questions fully and truthfully. This is the way to get both the jury and the prosecution on their side.

They will all still have the Federal Civil Rights trial to go through. That's new and when you have a Federal charge, well, it becomes the big boy in the room.......

I don't see how this is helpful (or logical).

Can you name a race of people that aren't"good and not violent"? This describes every race, doesn't it?

Nope! Laotian's aren't racist - tbey are ethnic, a big difference! Laotian's are also loyal!

So which ethnic groups do you judge as not being "good and not violent"?

Right now, ahhhhh Republican is a good place to start! They aren't even loyal!

I consider you to the same ethnic group as Republicans. We share a country. We share a culture.

You are going to have to accept this at some point.

Well now that you said that, I have to add you to the list of people who think this thread (or any other) is better because you post on it.

By a quick calculation (and I haven’t checked my math yet so don’t hold me to it) that list now has a grand total of

1 person on it.

Current Republicans belong to an Ethnic Group that was created in 2016 and has no beliefs and values that agree with the rest of America!

I think that list is actually 3.

But who is counting.

Bill,

1. White American is an ethnic group. The fact that your political spat causes you to hate Republicans doesn't change the fact that you share a country, a history, and a culture with them. Most of us have Republicans in our family.

2. My main point is that judging a person based on their ethnic group is generally not a good thing to do. You can take that advice, or not, as you wish.

I believe that Bill spoke of"ethnic" in terms of the "new" GOP being an ethno-centric political group.

history is replete with them. I think you know what Bill meant.