happyhippy posted:

Was it with Floyd's death that the police themselves turned up and clapped for the cop the day after?
Or was it another death they did this.

TulliusCicero posted:

What did this girl even do to require being put down like a rampaging bear?

Hold up a milkshake menacingly? You would think the loving pigs could at least wait while all eyes are on them to start indiscriminately murdering people again.

TulliusCicero posted:

It's really interesting to watch them all show their rear end like this, when it would be the easiest thing in the world to just walk away from it and distance themselves from Chauvin.

Instead they have to double down and talk about one white cop receiving justice is an attack on civilization, and they specifically wanted Trump in because he gave the go ahead for the police to commit murder of people they don't like.

It's fascinating and gross watching these wierdo fucks radicalize in real time. It can't just be a grift anymore right?

quote:

1. George Floyd, the victim, was particularly vulnerable because officers had already handcuffed him behind his back and then placed him chest down on the pavement, and Mr. Floyd clearly and repeatedly told the officers he could not breathe. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(1); State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Minn. 1996).
   
   
2. Mr. Floyd was treated with particular cruelty. Despite Mr. Floyd’s pleas that he could not breathe and was going to die, as well as the pleas of eyewitnesses for Defendant to get off Mr. Floyd and help him, Defendant and his codefendants continued to restrain Mr. Floyd. Defendant kept his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck to hold him prone on the ground for approximately nine minutes, during at least four minutes of which Mr. Floyd was motionless. This maneuver inflicted gratuitous pain on Mr. Floyd. Those eyewitnesses, of whose presence Defendant was aware, had to watch Mr. Floyd die. Defendant also did not provide Mr. Floyd with any medical assistance and discouraged the efforts of others to provide such assistance. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(2); State v. Hicks, 864 N.W.2d 153, 159-60 (Minn. 2015); Tucker v. State, 799 N.W.2d 583, 587-99 (Minn. 2011); State v. Smith, 541 N.W.2d 584, 590 (Minn. 1996); State v. Harwell, 515 N.W.2d 105, 109 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
   
   
3. Defendant abused a position of authority, as he was a licensed police officer in full uniform who, in conjunction with other officers, took full custody of Mr. Floyd. State v. Lee, 494 N.W.2d 475, 482 (Minn. 1992).
   
   
4. Defendant committed the crime as part of a group of three or more offenders who all actively participated in the crime. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b.(10).
   
   
5. Defendant committed the crime in the presence of multiple children, and Defendant’s criminal conduct was witnessed by children. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(13); State v. Profit, 323 N.W.2d 34, 36 (Minn. 1982).
   

V. Illych L. posted:

also norwegian police have been quite trigger-happy themselves lately. unarmed-as-a-rule has been fully hollowed out for reasons that seem to me to be obscure

Paracaidas posted:

https://twitter.com/MaryMoriarty/status/1384835081123123200
(Mary Moriarty has been providing useful insight all trial, former Chief Public Defender in Minneapolis before being ousted for insufficient when discussing our hosed up justice system). Relevant for the conversation regarding the conditions of Chauvin's incarceration and that he is already being treated atypically.

As it comes to sentencing, the state is seeking an enhancement based on the following 5 factors (from papers filed last year):

Neo Rasa posted:

George Floyd's death was the one the cops had t-shirts made saying "I CAN breathe" to commemorate.

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

erik garner was when those shirts started getting made. floyd was when they brought them back out of the closet

LLCoolJD posted:

Ror posted:

I have seen this and I am still amazed at how many people just can’t wait for the police to escalate to lethal force.

It’s the classic hammer and nail analogy where shooting a person makes sense because they have guns. Is the suggestion that this situation is completely unresolvable without shooting someone to death?

At the risk of sounding like an idiot who suggests that cops shoot people in the legs, why can’t several grown men control a girl with a knife? Is it absurd to suggest that they strike her arms with batons or just full-on tackle her? Obviously a knife is dangerous but I need more convincing that swinging one around constitutes threat of imminent death to the officers as well as the other girl. Would an officer without a gun just stand by?

A part of it is also the absolutely garbage risk assessment done by the police because they’re just as fallible as the rest of us. They’re willing to get into a high-speed car chase without a second thought despite it being the likely cause of their death but an unstable black girl with a weapon is like the angel of death in their eyes.

LLCoolJD posted:

Special inmate placements really aren't that rare. Although going from a jail to a prison is something I've never heard of. I have only ever seen jail to jail transfers.

TulliusCicero posted:

Can anyone tell me why an active shooter can be brought into custody alive, but a 15 year old girl with a knife can't?

Paracaidas posted:

"Burn this city to the loving ground and slaughter every pig who stands in your way if they come back without a guilty verdict" would still fail to demonstrate (among other things) a call to imminent violence.
[/list]

TulliusCicero posted:

Can anyone tell me why an active shooter can be brought into custody alive, but a 15 year old girl with a knife can't?

Ror posted:

I have seen this and I am still amazed at how many people just can’t wait for the police to escalate to lethal force.

It’s the classic hammer and nail analogy where shooting a person makes sense because they have guns. Is the suggestion that this situation is completely unresolvable without shooting someone to death?

At the risk of sounding like an idiot who suggests that cops shoot people in the legs, why can’t several grown men control a girl with a knife? Is it absurd to suggest that they strike her arms with batons or just full-on tackle her? Obviously a knife is dangerous but I need more convincing that swinging one around constitutes threat of imminent death to the officers as well as the other girl. Would an officer without a gun just stand by?

A part of it is also the absolutely garbage risk assessment done by the police despite their training convincing them they have a perfectly analytical mind. They’re willing to get into a high-speed car chase without a second thought despite it being the likely cause of their death but an unstable black girl with a weapon is like the angel of death in their eyes.

SocketWrench posted:

I doubt that IQ brag is real if this is his opinion on what being a police officer is


Yeah, the problem is this cop wasn't doing his job, he was violating the rules. To people like that shitstain the cops are there to murder anyone that doesn't mesh with their view of society


I think they were too busy tear gassing people outside the day after. That's what kicked off the violence in the first protest

Ror posted:

At the risk of sounding like an idiot who suggests that cops shoot people in the legs,

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

Police don’t give a poo poo about saving lives and have stood by watching someone die plenty of times. There is a Supreme Court decision that establishes that the police have no obligation to prevent a crime from taking place.

FoolyCharged posted:

That said, I know nothing of the incident beyond the still, so unless they rolled up to that scene there is still a huge problem here because the cops job is to stop things from getting to the point where someone needs shot

Civilized Fishbot posted:

I don't understand how that would not be a (morally justified) call to imminent violence.

Paracaidas posted:

"Burn this city to the loving ground and slaughter every pig who stands in your way if they come back without a guilty verdict" would still fail to demonstrate (among other things) a call to imminent violence.

Morningwoodpecker posted:

If you tried it and the victim died or got hurt you'd be in the deep end of the poop pool.

Paracaidas posted:

Appreciate the confirmation of atypical treatment from your experience!

Since the right wing outrage machine continues to spool up around Maxine (absolute shocker), it's worth remembering a few things so we avoid stumbling into bothsides dumbassery by mistake-

• Nelson has been threatening appeal since the beginning of March due to pretrial decisions. This is helpful shorthand for "the verdicts would have been appealed even if Maxine never made a single public statement".
  
• Nelson has been threatening appeal due to publicity and outside actors since well before Maxine made a public statement. Anyone is welcome to make the case that Maxine's statements will be given more weight by the appeals courts than the city's pre-trial settlement announcement, or that it will be viewed on appeal as the straw the broke the camel's back.... but generally that's not what's being argued when the usual suspects are coming after Maxine. Possibly because it's a ridiculous argument that draws attention away from the main point of Maxine Bad
  
• Even if one wishes to construe Maxine's comments as a call to violence and lawlessness (which is not supported by her actual words), there is no question that it was legal and protected speech. "Burn this city to the loving ground and slaughter every pig who stands in your way if they come back without a guilty verdict" would still fail to demonstrate (among other things) a call to imminent violence. Denizens of the politoons thread will have seen the comparisons to the January 6th speech, but it's important to remember that there is nothing in Maxine's words remotely comparable to "And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down." and the repeated calls to make their way towards Congress. In my eyes, even Trump's comments are on the fringe of imminence but at least one is able to make a case about it. There's simply no argument on Maxine's comments
  
• "Maxine is a loving dumbass" over timing you disagree with in the midst of a much higher profile cloud of right wing hysteria and legal illiteracy surrounding her is just fantastic way to ensure everyone knows where your priorities are.
  

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

Knowing nothing else about the guy beyond being Chavin's attorney it is his legal duty and obligation to provide the best defense possible. Of course he's appealing. He has to and he can get more money from Chauvin.

LLCoolJD posted:

Ror posted:

I have seen this and I am still amazed at how many people just can’t wait for the police to escalate to lethal force.

It’s the classic hammer and nail analogy where shooting a person makes sense because they have guns. Is the suggestion that this situation is completely unresolvable without shooting someone to death?

At the risk of sounding like an idiot who suggests that cops shoot people in the legs, why can’t several grown men control a girl with a knife? Is it absurd to suggest that they strike her arms with batons or just full-on tackle her? Obviously a knife is dangerous but I need more convincing that swinging one around constitutes threat of imminent death to the officers as well as the other girl. Would an officer without a gun just stand by?

A part of it is also the absolutely garbage risk assessment done by the police despite their training convincing them they have a perfectly analytical mind. They’re willing to get into a high-speed car chase without a second thought despite it being the likely cause of their death but an unstable black girl with a weapon is like the angel of death in their eyes.

TulliusCicero posted:

Can anyone tell me why an active shooter can be brought into custody alive, but a 15 year old girl with a knife can't?

Paracaidas posted:

That the officer believed that his most professionally responsible course of action was to immediately gun down a child is probably the most damning indictment I can imagine, short of defending him by declaring all other courses of action improbable and unrealistic.

Vorik posted:

Honestly the people who are at most fault here are her parents. They were standing right behind Makiah, outside their home, watching her argue with people while holding a knife. They completely and utterly failed that child. The fact that the situation even got to that point speaks volumes to how utterly incompetent they are as parents. The cop had mere seconds from the moment he arrived to when Makiah started charging at people with a knife. American police have never been known for their de-escalation tactics so I'm not sure how much different things would have turned out if he'd gotten there earlier, but this isn't really a case of the police overreacting.

To the poster who said "How lethal could a knife really be"? A couple of weeks back there was a video of a group of 12 year olds who got into a scuffle at Walmart. One of the girls had brought a knife with her. She stabbed the girl she was fighting a single time and that's all it took for her to bleed to death before the ambulance could get there. That police officer could have very well saved the woman in pink's life. She was a second or two away from getting stabbed.

I'm sad Makiah didn't have better people in her life who could have prevented the situation from getting to the point that it did.

quote:

Police haven't released the name of the person shot, but Franklin County Children's Services said the girl killed was 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant and that she was in foster care and in the custody of Children's Services.

Hazel Bryant said her niece lived in a foster home there on Legion Lane and got into an altercation with someone else at the home.

Josef bugman posted:

A knife isn't a sharpie and the lust for murder that is on display here is kind of messed up.

TulliusCicero posted:

The Killology poo poo pushed by that lunatic Grossman teaches police ANYONE can be the serial killer trying to murder you, and you have to kill them first (and then you will have Great Sex afterwards according to the aptly named Grossman )

Grossman is a loving monster who has done unfathomable harm to this country's law enforcement training. He needs to be shut down today.

There was no reason for this girl to die. Taser, baton, tackling, idk, "DROP THE loving KNIFE!" could have been yelled? He tries absolutely nothing.

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

Police don’t give a poo poo about saving lives and have stood by watching someone die plenty of times. There is a Supreme Court decision that establishes that the police have no obligation to prevent a crime from taking place.

ryde posted:

Actually evaluating the situation isn't lusting for murder. No-one is happy that the cop shot the girl. Its a tragedy.

Josef bugman posted:

A knife isn't a sharpie and the lust for murder that is on display here is kind of messed up.

Kalit posted:

FYI, I think an important thing to be aware of before criticizing parenting is that this is a foster home. It's unclear how long she had been in this foster home for, how long these people have known her, etc: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/21/columbus-police-shot-killed-teen-girl-what-we-know/7316707002/

willie_dee posted:

The police officer probably saved the other girl in pinks life.

Josef bugman posted:

I know that more than likely it is based on "oh this will cause the least amount of time in the long term" or any number of good reasons why violence must be meted out towards people. It's just that, well, that argument is often ignored when it comes to things that are outside of accepted paradigms.

willie_dee posted:

You would want to use a real knife in the experiment? Are you mad and do you want to die for the experiment?

A sharpie is an excellent way of demonstrating how stupid it is to try and go any where near someone with a knife is. The person without the knife will be covered in pen ink. That pen ink demonstrates how stabbed up you would be.

The lust for murder is not here, if anything you just have a lot of people with zero clue on any kind of physical combat training or experiencing trying to comment. One idiot even asked how dangerous a knife could possibly be. The police officer probably saved the other girl in pinks life.

Who would you rather see dead, the victim in pink, or the girl trying to murder her? Do you think the girl in pink should be sacrificed because you would rather see her murdered by a 15 year old girl than the 15 year old girl trying to murder people be murdered by a cop, is that your logic? In which case, why is that particular form of lust for murder ok but the police using deadly force to stop murder not ok?

Dapper_Swindler posted:

This. It takes him maybe 5 seconds on the scene to do it. Also even if you believe it’s “justified”, he could of super easily hit the other lady too because he decided to pump 4 shots in. I think it’s a hosed situation and the cop should at the very least be sacked.