• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Police Brutality Thread

And they're off! 🏇

Xorkoth said:
Good. I hope we can all at least agree that this cop deserves to be in prison, for entering someone else's apartment without a warrant (thinking it was her own apartment apparently, but accident or not it's inexcusable) and shooting the resident dead. No wiggle room there (I certainly hope... please?)
Click to expand...
There was more wiggle room in her case than there is/was in Officer Chauvin et al's case(s).


Pumpkin2021 said:
It's not so much what she did, but what she didn't do. At first it seemed plausible that she had accidentally entered the wrong apartment ( they all looked alike in her complex and had 5 identical floors ). She was coming off of a long shift and was one floor ABOVE her own that was the victims. She entered and was surprised to see him in what she thought was her own apartment and fired her weapon at him. I thought okay, well that could possibly happen. But after she shot him she gets on her cell, calls 911 , and for the next 4 minutes she bleats and blatts about how she is going to lose her job to the dispatcher. She has a freakin 1st aid kit on her and doesn't even pull out a lousy band aid for the guy. She rendered NO aid, no CPR, no nothin". She just let him lay there on the floor and bleed out. IF she would have just rendered aid I think the jury would have thought differently. The prosecution decimated her on the stand.
Click to expand...
Yeah yeah. The jury would have thought differently had they stuck to the facts and the events and not fallen for the prosecution's smear campaign regarding her personal life.


Anyway. I ain't going around in circles again on this one.


The good news: apparently this now clears the way for her to appeal to Texas' highest, and more conservative, court!

"Guyger can now appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the state’s highest criminal court and is much more conservative than Dallas’ Fifth District Court of Appeals."


Ya'll just leave her be. Apparently we have some zany connection! 👀 :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Welcome back @dalpat077. Please stay. We're drowning in left wing loonies these days. Now we also have right wing loonies. We need your racist SA wisdom.

Jokes aside, I posted this thing in Off Topic.

CEPS Well Hung Parliament (CEPS Social/Off Topic)

Don't listen to the people who talk shit about me . Have a conversation with me and watch me brighten your day :) Idk of anyone saying anything about anybody. I dont really know anyone from on here personally. Why would people be talking shit about ya?
www.bluelight.org www.bluelight.org

Seriously. Imagine if this guy was black.
But, he's white, so: nothing.
Fucking crickets.
Nobody cares.

Joshua Spriestersbach: Mistaken identity lands man in Hawaii psychiatric hospital for years

amp.9news.com.au
 
Considering the fact that Ms. Guyger took the witness stand she opened herself up to that cross examination. When I said the prosecution decimated her I used the wrong word. They monopolized on the questions that her attorney asked her and it was fair game for them to contradict the answers that she gave. I understand how compelling it might me to testify in ones own trial. My watching of them ever since they became public became entertainment as I wasn't too into the network programming on TV. So I became a trial watcher. I know there are trials that have ended in a not guilty verdict where the defendant has testified but I have never seen one. Each and every time the defendant takes the stand has resulted in a guilty verdict and it was because they were their own worst enemy. Juries polled afterwards have said time and time again that they had reasonable doubt until they heard the defendant. The Direct exam is a piece of cake. They are eloquent, soft spoken and calm. Upon cross they get uncomfortable, the I can't remembers, and I can't recall start coming out and the whole demeanor changes. A defendant is a Prosecutors wet dream. Guygers personal life only came out as it was her attorney that proposed questions about it on Direct. The Prosecutor can only ask questions on cross that have already been asked on Direct. They couldn't have brought it up on their own and had her attorney never mentioned it the jury would have never known.

Because of this I now only watch the cross examination of defendants and not the direct testimony. You can glean nothing from the testimony until you hear the cross. This has resulted in very few defendants taking the stand now. They used to think if they got their side of it out in the open it would go in their favor. The cross examination usually proves otherwise.

No quotes but I see a reference to Steven Avery. Kathleen Zellner is an excellent post conviction lawyer and has proven many clients innocent that were found guilty. She had no chance with Avery. Avery's nephews confession, albeit pathetic, couldn't be unraveled in such a manner to warrant a new trial. Two people can keep a secret if one is dead.
 
dalpat077 said:
There was more wiggle room in her case than there is/was in Officer Chauvin et al's case(s).
Click to expand...

You think? Really? Chauvin arrested someone for a crime, and held him. There was reason for him to be doing so, even if he used excessive force and was guilty in the end. On the other hand, this cop falsely entered someone else's apartment, who was not in any way committing a crime or even had any contact or interaction with her at all, and proceeded to shoot him to death. Then she failed to offer any aid at all and just tried to cover her own ass. How is there any wiggle room at all?

I'm not trying to defend Chauvin, at all... but he was way closer to being in the right than Amber Guyger.
 
Pumpkin2021 said:
It's not so much what she did, but what she didn't do. At first it seemed plausible that she had accidentally entered the wrong apartment ( they all looked alike in her complex and had 5 identical floors ). She was coming off of a long shift and was one floor ABOVE her own that was the victims. She entered and was surprised to see him in what she thought was her own apartment and fired her weapon at him. I thought okay, well that could possibly happen. But after she shot him she gets on her cell, calls 911 , and for the next 4 minutes she bleats and blatts about how she is going to lose her job to the dispatcher. She has a freakin 1st aid kit on her and doesn't even pull out a lousy band aid for the guy. She rendered NO aid, no CPR, no nothin". She just let him lay there on the floor and bleed out. IF she would have just rendered aid I think the jury would have thought differently. The prosecution decimated her on the stand.
Click to expand...

The whole thing was so absurd. I've lived in apartment buildings with similar layouts and have never once wandered into an apartment that wasn't mine. Not even while extremely intoxicated, which from what I understand she wasn't. To then compound that head-scratcher by killing someone, well, in hindsight it was obviously a mistake that she ever received a badge and a gun.

But it's amazing how those things will totally change the nature of an event for some people. Hey, did you hear that someone wandered into another person's apartment and shot them dead, for no apparent reason?

Really, that's awful!

Yeah, and apparently the shooter was a cop too!

Oh...well that puts a whole new light on things! Maybe we should take another look at this situation...was the poor officer having a bad day? Maybe a bit stressed out? Did someone perhaps say an unkind word to them, did they have an unpleasant experience at work? Sure someones been shot dead in their own apartment but who's the REAL victim here?
 
Didn't realize Chauvin actually got a 2nd Federal indictment. He allegedly hit a 14 year old black youth in the head with his flashlight, threw him on the ground, and kneeled on his neck. This happened in 2017. The indictment charges that he " denied a person of color their due civil rights ". So one for Floyd and one for the kid. Looks like he may spend more than 22.5 years in the hoosegow.

Nelson is his lawyer in his Federal cases as well.
 
Pumpkin2021 said:
Didn't realize Chauvin actually got a 2nd Federal indictment. He allegedly hit a 14 year old black youth in the head with his flashlight, threw him on the ground, and kneeled on his neck. This happened in 2017. The indictment charges that he " denied a person of color their due civil rights ". So one for Floyd and one for the kid. Looks like he may spend more than 22.5 years in the hoosegow.

Nelson is his lawyer in his Federal cases as well.
Click to expand...
how was this not revealed to the public? maybe it would have caused a biased trial if released and was sealed?
 
Snafu of the Forest said:
how was this not revealed to the public? maybe it would have caused a biased trial if released and was sealed?
Click to expand...
Yep. No news stories on it. I was looking up when his trial was going to start and was wondering if he was offered a plea deal ( unlike his State case ) and found this little nugget. Bet ya another officer ratted him out about the 2017 incident. Might have been one of the 3 that are also indicted. Rat Chauvin out and get less time. But I really don't know how the Feds found out about the black teenager incident. I tell ya, he was a rogue cop beating the crap out of blacks and no one stopped him until he finally did it on video with Floyd. Lord only knows how many other people he battered during their arrests.

Asshole.
 
Pumpkin2021 said:
Didn't realize Chauvin actually got a 2nd Federal indictment. He allegedly hit a 14 year old black youth in the head with his flashlight, threw him on the ground, and kneeled on his neck. This happened in 2017. The indictment charges that he " denied a person of color their due civil rights ". So one for Floyd and one for the kid. Looks like he may spend more than 22.5 years in the hoosegow.

Nelson is his lawyer in his Federal cases as well.
Click to expand...

Well now I'm even more glad he got nailed. Clearly this was a pattern of inappropriate behavior. The narrative that he was just defending himself against a gigantic scary criminal adult crumbles a bit when you realize that he did the same to a 14 year old boy. Also black, it turns out. But must just be a coincidence.

And the narrative that he received an unfair and biased trial crumbles a bit, too, if you now consider that this piece of information was kept from the public. The only reason I can surmise is that they wanted to avoid a biased trial (this is exactly opposite of what the narrative is/was trying to suggest, that they were trying to create a biased trial).

What say the Chauvin defenders about this?
 
Ya'll talking about this little incident? Note that this broadcast is dated 19 November 2020.




And here's the memorandum that was filed with the court by Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank on 16 November 2020:


And just for fun: even although said memorandum was filed by the State please DO read the details contained therein. Makes for some interesting reading. For one thing: let's not go fooling ourselves into thinking that this was some poor little 14-year old boy who was just minding his business and compliant. Mind you: kudos to the gentle giant i.e. he made 17 minutes (although that's technically not correct but let's not get into that) and lived to tell the tale and, I'm assuming, to become the next multi-millionaire.


The link below is a snapshot, taken on 24 February 2021 by Internet Archive Wayback Machine, of Wikipedia's Derek Chauvin page. Unfortunately Wikipedia itself doesn't allow for perusing edits or revisions to the page that go back further than March 2021 so it's not possible to see EXACTLY when the little "Civil rights investigation" nugget was added to the page by Wikipedia but suffice to say the same was added somewhere between 3 January 2021 and 24 February 2021 (3 January 2021 being the date of the previous snapshot of the page taken by Internet Archive Wayback Machine).

Derek Chauvin - Wikipedia

web.archive.org web.archive.org


More than a few people knew about this incident somewhere between 16 November 2020 and 24 February 2021.

Need I remind anybody that the trial started on 8 March 2021.


As to why the MSM didn't jump on any of the above between 16 November 2020 and the start of the trial I know not. Oh. That's right. Elections! Mind you. Maybe they did i.e. cannot say as I found anything but given the, now, irrelevance I'm not spending my day searching through YouTube channels belonging to the usual suspects. But I'd find it very hard to believe that lil' ol' me is the only one, albeit after the fact, that could find this information. Wanna tell me that the likes of CNN and MSNBC didn't know about this shit at the time what with all of their resources? Nah.

Anyway and whatever the case: suffice to say nothing was being kept from Joe Public.
 
Oh, the news agencies knew. Gag order maybe? Bias going into the Floyd trial obviously. But after the trial and the guilty verdict seems news agencies would be scrambling to get these prior acts out to the public. Maybe it was and I missed it. After the guilty verdict I lost interest until the Feds said they were picking it up. Only reason I looked yesterday was wondering if he had been offered a plea. Was surprised at the 2nd indictment.
 
Pumpkin2021 said:
Oh, the news agencies knew. Gag order maybe? Bias going into the Floyd trial obviously. But after the trial and the guilty verdict seems news agencies would be scrambling to get these prior acts out to the public. Maybe it was and I missed it. After the guilty verdict I lost interest until the Feds said they were picking it up. Only reason I looked yesterday was wondering if he had been offered a plea. Was surprised at the 2nd indictment.
Click to expand...
Meh. Gag order? Nah. Just wasn't newsworthy at the time would be my guess. They had bigger fish to fry at the time (remember that other dude, oh, what was his name again, oh yes: President Trump)! :ROFLMAO:

Admittedly my response was to draw attention to the actual details of the little incident and dispel any misconceptions about the same. You know. When I read about a 14-year old boy: I don't instinctively think of a 6’2” 240 pound giant who, along with his sister no less, was beating up on his mother (and who, by the way, was the one that made the call and wanted her kids taken out of the house) and then failing to comply with a direct order from a law enforcement officer or two.

Must just be me! :ROFLMAO:
 
Chauvin just seems confrontational to me. The man wore a taser, I'm sure. And most cops don't respond alone. I understand that cops have to protect themselves from an unruly subject but he just seems too arrogant for me. That smirk that he displayed while on Floyds neck said so much. He thought he was immune and was going to dominate another suspect and just didn't care who saw or who responded. Didn't even listen to the other officers who told him to back off. That smirk, though.
 
Pumpkin2021 said:
Chauvin just seems confrontational to me. The man wore a taser, I'm sure. And most cops don't respond alone. I understand that cops have to protect themselves from an unruly subject but he just seems too arrogant for me. That smirk that he displayed while on Floyds neck said so much. He thought he was immune and was going to dominate another suspect and just didn't care who saw or who responded. Didn't even listen to the other officers who told him to back off. That smirk, though.
Click to expand...
many cops covet this sense of power they get from the position, just like any feeling of power might corrupt some people, corruption is everywhere. I think the fact that Chauvin was a bouncer/security for a long time before this points in that direction. Some men (and women for the matter) just crave the ability to physically and/or mentally dominate someone - so they enter these sorts of jobs where they're encouraged to do it. Not to say the majority of cops are like that, because they aren't, but a lot of them are.
 
All 4 defendants in the Floyd matter are appearing today in Federal Court after being indicted on several serious charges. One is failing to render aid, and one is violating civil rights. I believe there is a 3rd charge also.

The other 3 are still facing State charges in Minnesota and are going to trial in March of 2022.

So all 4 have Federal AND State charges. And only Chauvin has had his State one adjudicated.

Any plea deals for any of them have not been disclosed. Sounds like the other 3 didn't get one from the State ( as Chauvin did not ) but pleas have been offered and accepted at the trial level so we shall see.
 
Last edited:
Interesting relatively hot off of the press little nuggets.


"Ex-cop's overturned murder conviction has broader impact on Chauvin case, other police prosecutions

'It's crystal clear now that Derek Chauvin cannot be convicted of murder three,' said one law professor

Sep 16, 2021"

www.police1.com

Ex-cop's overturned murder conviction has broader impact on Chauvin case, other police prosecutions

"It's crystal clear now that Derek Chauvin cannot be convicted of murder three," said one law professor
www.police1.com www.police1.com


"Chauvin pleads not guilty to violating teen's civil rights

The indictment alleges that Chauvin, in a separate case, used a restraint similar to the one used on George Floyd

Sep 16, 2021"

www.police1.com

Chauvin pleads not guilty to violating teen's civil rights

The indictment alleges that Chauvin, in a separate case, used a restraint similar to the one used on George Floyd
www.police1.com www.police1.com


"Ex-officer Kim Potter seeks dismissal of added manslaughter charge in Wright shooting

Lawyers argued that there was no evidence Potter believed she was holding a gun

Sep 16, 2021"

www.police1.com

Ex-officer Kim Potter seeks dismissal of added manslaughter charge in Wright shooting

Lawyers argued that there was no evidence Potter believed she was holding a gun
www.police1.com www.police1.com
 
Chauvin filed his post conviction appeal the other day. He is representing himself. Nelson is no longer his Attorney.

His legal fees are now being paid by the Police Association of Minnesota.

He is citing several issues, one being that the Judge denied the change of venue ( which I agree with ) and another is he didn't sequester the Jury ( which I also agree with. )

I DO NOT approve of what Chauvin did and believe he deserved his conviction but a fair trial is extremely important for all of us and I believe the Judge dropped the ball on those 2 issues.

There were many social and legal issues that went on outside of the Courtroom before, during, and after his trial that were not taken into account regarding jury bias.
 
Denying a change of venue makes sense if you look at some of the former incidents of accused police misconduct (Rodney King, Amadou Diallo, etc) where that occurred. Pulling the jury from where the incident took place doesn’t give the appearance of an undue advantage to the defendant...and that was important in this particular trial for obvious reasons
 
Xorkoth said:
What say the Chauvin defenders about this?
Click to expand...

There are two things to consider here.

1) There's a history of this sort of behaviour from Chauvin.

2) Restraining a 14 year old kid in the same way Chauvin restrained Floyd did not result in death or even serious injury.

Also black, it turns out. But must just be a coincidence.
Click to expand...

It's not much of a coincidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top