George Floyd

[BoSoxGal]

Actually, the 2nd degree murder charge against Chauvin is an unintentional murder charge. It’s a murder that is consequential to an intentional felony, in this case assault. So the prosecutor does not have to prove intent to kill, which is very difficult especially in police brutality cases.


It is very, very difficult to obtain convictions of police officers in murder cases, in the very few cases that get past the initial obstacles to even get charged. Also just as difficult in excessive force cases - see Rodney King. The majority of the population is raised to trust and almost revere law enforcement, and juries will often overlook the evidence in front of their eyes in favor of the testilying evidence provided by the officers themselves at trial, or via their impassioned defense attorneys.

I pray for a good outcome in this case, and also for the slow grind of justice to be present as usual to give time for passions to quiet. In the meantime I hope that fundamental and sweeping reforms will be enacted to address the grievances of citizens, because if the verdict is not guilty, there must be something for folks to cling to else they’ll want to burn it all down.

[Gob]

What do you mean by "ludicrous situation"? If you are wondering why states don't change the Federal government it's because they cannot, any more than Southend Council can change Parliament.

What do you mean by "Democratic states"? States with majority Democrat legislatures? States with a Democrat governor?

Note that Minnesota has a Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party governor and lt.-governor. The House of Representatives is 56% DFL, 41% Republican and 3% New Republican Caucus. The Senate however is split 52% Republican and 48% DFL - which means passing laws is not the exclusive preserve of the DFL at all.

Minneapolis is DFL to the nth. And still, George Floyd happened. What is your suggestion for what the DFL leadership of Minneapolis should have done to stop Chauvin kneeling on the guy's neck for 8 minutes? Which specific bit of the "Democratic state" should have "changed" that?

So, from what you are saying, I take it that it's impossible for anywhere in the USA to make extra-judicial killings by the police a crime? Wow, what a country!

[BoSoxGal]

What a joke. Racism is very much alive and well in the UK, and extrajudicial killings by state agents happen there, too.

Really? Extrajudicial killings by state agents in the UK? Evidence please!

There are people protesting there right now for the same reasons, not just about what’s happening here. Get off your fucking high horse.

No one has suggested that the UK is immune from racism, classic "whataboutism"

Or post another article about Paki crimes in the UK while ignoring all the white crime.

Yawn.. even more classic "whataboutism".

Mark Duggan, Christopher Alder, Sarah Reed, Sheku Bayoh, Sean Rigg - I’m sure a great many more.

Stop pretending your society is so much better than ours Gob - you folks are the original source of the racism and slavery that stained this country before it even was one.

And it is not whataboutism, in a conversation about racism, to point out your years long habit of posting articles about the crimes and failings of brown and black people in the UK, while almost never mentioning that the vast majority of crime there is committed by people who look just like the face that stares back from your mirror every morning.

[Econoline]

So, from what you are saying, I take it that it's impossible for anywhere in the USA to make extra-judicial killings by the police a crime? Wow, what a country!

You don't see the difference between passing a law and getting a conviction in a court of law? (Especially when getting that conviction involves getting 12 randomly chosen U.S. citizens to agree unanimously on something?)

[datsunaholic]

It is very, very difficult to obtain convictions of police officers in murder cases, in the very few cases that get past the initial obstacles to even get charged. Also just as difficult in excessive force cases - see Rodney King. The majority of the population is raised to trust and almost revere law enforcement, and juries will often overlook the evidence in front of their eyes in favor of the testilying evidence provided by the officers themselves at trial, or via their impassioned defense attorneys.

This. I highlighted the key part- we are taught, going all the way back to elementary school, to trust, respect, and follow the orders of police because "they will always protect us". The problem is, that's not true. And for Black Americans, it is often the opposite.

The lawyers choose the juries. The defense will always reject, for cause, any potential juror who admits to have had any bad experience with a cop. This pretty much guarantees a jury that is already biased FOR the police.

[Crackpot]

Not to mention since police tend to work with the prosecutors office there is an inherent conflict of interest.

[Crackpot]

Not to mention since police tend to work with the prosecutors office there is an inherent conflict of interest.

[BoSoxGal]

Definitely, and important enough to say twice.

Some prosecutors are just unconcerned about police brutality, some are too gutless to take it on because they know police can make their lives a living hell as far as making any other good cases. (I shouldn’t have said gutless, because truly working day in and out with nasty cops hell bent on making your life a misery is an almost unendurable agony.)

That’s why all police brutality should be handled by an independent prosecutorial authority - a unit of the state AG’s office makes sense.

[Jarlaxle]

Actually, the 2nd degree murder charge against Chauvin is an unintentional murder charge. It’s a murder that is consequential to an intentional felony, in this case assault. So the prosecutor does not have to prove intent to kill, which is very difficult especially in police brutality cases.

That's "felony murder" in most places, right?

It is very, very difficult to obtain convictions of police officers in murder cases, in the very few cases that get past the initial obstacles to even get charged. Also just as difficult in excessive force cases - see Rodney King. The majority of the population is raised to trust and almost revere law enforcement, and juries will often overlook the evidence in front of their eyes in favor of the testilying evidence provided by the officers themselves at trial, or via their impassioned defense attorneys.

And, of course, prosecutors who have little desire to get someone who they see on "their side" convicted.

I pray for a good outcome in this case, and also for the slow grind of justice to be present as usual to give time for passions to quiet. In the meantime I hope that fundamental and sweeping reforms will be enacted to address the grievances of citizens, because if the verdict is not guilty, there must be something for folks to cling to else they’ll want to burn it all down.

Chauvin might get convicted (though I wouldn't bet more than fifty bucks on it), but I expect little if anything will change.

I kind of hope Chauvin leaves his first court appearance and is greeted at the door by a .308FMJ round from a quarter mile.

[BoSoxGal]

Yes, this is Minnesota’s manifestation of the felony murder rule. The death can be accidental rather than intentional but it is still considered murder.

In some jurisdictions you can charge accomplices similarly whether or not they’ve participated - like the getaway car driver who sits outside while his buddy robs a convenience store and shoots the clerk. In this case the accomplices, two who actually participated, are being charged with aiding/abetting. Some legal peculiarity of the jurisdiction but irrelevant in that they’re facing the same penalty. I suspect the charges were very well thought through from the standpoint of what gives them the best chance to win at trial - a Herculean task in any case.

[Jarlaxle]

Yes, this is Minnesota’s manifestation of the felony murder rule.

Isn't FM murder one (either officially, or carrying identical sentences) in most states?

[BoSoxGal]

In many jurisdictions it’s 1st degree, but not all. There’s a very good discussion here https://www.justia.com/criminal/offense ... ny-murder/

Many countries have abolished the felony murder rule as inherently unjust. I have very mixed feelings myself. Frankly I don’t believe that the two officers who had less than a week on the job are equally culpable for the death of George Floyd as is Derek Chauvin and officer Thao, who should have known better and acted with urgency to intervene.

[Jarlaxle]

In many jurisdictions it’s 1st degree, but not all. There’s a very good discussion here https://www.justia.com/criminal/offense ... ny-murder/

Many countries have abolished the felony murder rule as inherently unjust. I have very mixed feelings myself. Frankly I don’t believe that the two officers who had less than a week on the job are equally culpable for the death of George Floyd as is Derek Chauvin and officer Thao, who should have known better and acted with urgency to intervene.

Make examples out of all of them.

[Econoline]

I heard an interesting interview with Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot on NPR this morning, in which she pointed out the fact that not only was Chauvin the senior officer on the scene, but he was also the training officer for the two rookies (who as BSG points out had been on the force for less than a week): i.e., they were required to call him "sir" and he was supposed to be teaching them how to behave as police officers.

She also agreed that

...police unions continue to be one of the biggest obstacles to reform.

"Unfortunately, in history in our city, and I think the history of other cities, unions are extraordinarily reluctant to embrace reform and that's a current state of affairs here," Lightfoot said in an interview Saturday with NPR's Weekend Edition. "We have had to take them to arbitration to win very modest reforms, and that's a shame of the history of collective bargaining where there hasn't been an emphasis on reform and accountability."

"These contracts," she said, "are a significant problem and challenge in getting the reforms necessary."

[Econoline]

"Whataboutism"?

ETA: source

[Gob]

Mark Duggan, Christopher Alder, Sarah Reed, Sheku Bayoh, Sean Rigg - I’m sure a great many more.

So the state "sanctioned" these murders, did it?

Mark Duggan; A public inquest on the Duggan death began on 16 September 2013, and ended on 8 January 2014 with an 8–2 majority concluding that Duggan's death was a lawful killing.

Christopher Alder: Died from injuries due to a fight in a nightclub. The police were found guilty of neglect.

Sean Rigg was a 40-year-old black British musician and music producer who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. He died following a cardiac arrest on 21 August 2008 while in police custody at the entrance to Brixton police station, South London, England. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) launched an investigation into Rigg's death on 22 August 2008. The investigation took 18 months to complete and concluded that there was no evidence of neglect or wrongdoing and that the police had acted "reasonably and proportionately".

Stop pretending your society is so much better than ours Gob - you folks are the original source of the racism and slavery that stained this country before it even was one.

Any society is better than the one with you in it love. I have never claimed the UK is better than the USA in this respect, it's all your doing dragging the UK in. Your stooping so far back as to bring in historical slavery just shows your desperation.

And it is not whataboutism, in a conversation about racism, to point out your years long habit of posting articles about the crimes and failings of brown and black people in the UK, while almost never mentioning that the vast majority of crime there is committed by people who look just like the face that stares back from your mirror every morning.

When discussing events in the USA, to introduce the "well the UK is just as bad, yah boo sucks" idiocy is classical "whatebaoutism".

[ex-khobar Andy]

Is there a potential problem with overcharging? I recall a case from years ago (I may have some details wrong) where the charge was first degree murder. The jury thought that there was some detail which would have resulted in a conviction on a murder 2 or manslaughter charge but because that wasn't an option, he was not guilty and he went free. Is that a jurisdictional thing - i.e., some states allow it - or does a prosecutor specifically have to allow alternatives in case the jury cannot agree on the main charge?

[BoSoxGal]

I didn’t say the UK was just as bad - my attacks were largely on you, where they belonged, because of your insistence on pointing fingers while pretending you are blameless yourself. Anybody who has paid attention to your habit of regularly denigrating people of color in your post topics knows you’re not. I’ll credit you with having slowed that habit in recent years, but I think it’s more about the reduction of posting in general that coincided with your return to Cornwall and retirement from a job that gave you plenty of time to post. You’re only posting more now because Hen is in Oz and you’re home alone with the dogs and on lockdown.

This dishonesty in mischaracterizing my posts is highly distasteful. Your recent habit of personally attacking me - probably because I made the point a few years ago about your xenophobic and racist posts - is also distasteful. Hard to believe now that I once held you in esteem - but that was many years and many racist and sexist posts (by you) ago.

Since I’m making a practice of removing toxic people from my circle, I’m going to go ahead and put you on ignore. Why don’t you do the same, Gob? As you recall, I recently asked you daily for at least a week to cancel my account - you refused to reply or comply with my request. If you kept me here to be your punching bag, that’s twisted. If you think I’m a silly woman (and I note that you brought my sex into it, you couldn’t just argue with my perspective without denigrating me in highly sexist terms), then just stop reading or replying to what I bring here.

eta: Ah, I’m stuck seeing your racist sexist posts because you’re an admin, and I’m not allowed to put you on ignore. What joy!

[Bicycle Bill]

Maybe one of the three people who BSG does not have on ignore will forward this to her .....

Since you seem so unwilling to interact with people here unless they are of the same mindset as you, why don't you just drop off the board?  Don't keep on grandstanding by asking someone to rescind your 'membership' or by making all these declarations that "You, so-and-so, can just go fuck yourself because I'm putting you on ignore" — just find the exit and walk out of it.  Others have done it, you can too. Just don't the doorknob hit ya where God split ya.

But of course, then you wouldn't get to keep demanding "GODDAMMIT, EVERYONE, PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I'M SAYING!" by throwing these huge, over-the-top, "nobody likes me, everybody hates me, so I guess I'll go eat worms" productions that seem to come up on a once-a-month basis.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

Still following me around, I see. Too bad ignore on this board isn’t like others, where I don’t have to see your existence at all.

Why so obsessed with mine? (Don’t bother answering, I’m not reading you. )