Police Brutality Thread

[dalpat077]

your quotes don't really explain why a juror receiving media attention after the trial implies a lack of fairness in consideration of the verdict during trial. can you break it down?

alasdair

I'm not saying that his receiving media attention after the fact is an issue. This seems to be commonplace anyway (in just thinking back about Amber Guyger's trial). It's just what this dude is saying is all. To me: he's just confirming what we (well some of us) already knew going into the deliberations is all.

Put it this way: even if I have to say so myself I made a good point on this thread some time ago. There is no way that a jury could have reached a verdict in such a short space of time, and in such a high profile case such as this, and with of its twists and turns. People on this thread have asked better and more intelligent questions than they, the jury, even had time to ask and then deliberate about (particularly when it comes to the pathology side of things).

Obviously I wasn't there so I'm making assumptions. But that's my logic. And this dude hasn't said anything to make me question my stance on this. Same goes for the alternate jurors and their take on things.

Again and personal opinion and observation: this trial's outcome, technically, was based on one particular video i.e. that one of the bystander in the crowd. Were it not for that video being played ad nauseam, and there was only the body cam footage, I doubt very much that the charges of murder would have stuck. Manslaughter MAYBE. But that video went viral and that was the end of that (or the beginning of all of the shit) (pick your poison).

And something that's not even come up on this thread and that I believe played a part (even if only subliminally) was his apparently pissing himself after he'd gone to greener pastures. If you take a look at the bystander's video: that's what it looks like. And I've seen comments about this elsewhere. And it gives a sort of human, maybe debauched, twist to the whole thing. But take a good look at the body cam footage. There was already water on the road to begin with. And it sure looks to me that if it wasn't that water then it was condensation from the vehicle's air conditioner. A stupid thing I know. But I can tell you it took me longer to peruse all of the video evidence and examine it than it did the jury to convict and this in spite of them having a whole bunch of other evidence to consider.

Good job I wasn't on that jury i.e. we'd still be in session!

 

[alasdairm]

I'm not saying that his receiving media attention after the fact is an issue.

but you made a big thing of his/their supposed anonymity before the verdict and the attention he received after.

and you added this: "had they found Officer Chauvin not guilty on any single one of the charges (let alone acquitted him): they'd not have been able to find this dude for dust nor for love nor money" which, of course, is completely hypothetical and unprovable but you assume is true in support of your argument.

you say now it's not an issue but you made it an issue, hence my confusion.

with respect, i think you're making too many assumptions.

alasdair

 

[Nurse Ratched]

I'm not saying that his receiving media attention after the fact is an issue. This seems to be commonplace anyway (in just thinking back about Amber Guyger's trial). It's just what this dude is saying is all. To me: he's just confirming what we (well some of us) already knew going into the deliberations is all.

Put it this way: even if I have to say so myself I made a good point on this thread some time ago. There is no way that a jury could have reached a verdict in such a short space of time, and in such a high profile case such as this, and with of its twists and turns. People on this thread have asked better and more intelligent questions than they, the jury, even had time to ask and then deliberate about (particularly when it comes to the pathology side of things).

Obviously I wasn't there so I'm making assumptions. But that's my logic. And this dude hasn't said anything to make me question my stance on this. Same goes for the alternate jurors and their take on things.

Again and personal opinion and observation: this trial's outcome, technically, was based on one particular video i.e. that one of the bystander in the crowd. Were it not for that video being played ad nauseam, and there was only the body cam footage, I doubt very much that the charges of murder would have stuck. Manslaughter MAYBE. But that video went viral and that was the end of that (or the beginning of all of the shit) (pick your poison).

And something that's not even come up on this thread and that I believe played a part (even if only subliminally) was his apparently pissing himself after he'd gone to greener pastures. If you take a look at the bystander's video: that's what it looks like. And I've seen comments about this elsewhere. And it gives a sort of human, maybe debauched, twist to the whole thing. But take a good look at the body cam footage. There was already water on the road to begin with. And it sure looks to me that if it wasn't that water then it was condensation from the vehicle's air conditioner. A stupid thing I know. But I can tell you it took me longer to peruse all of the video evidence and examine it than it did the jury to convict an

In shor

I'm not saying that his receiving media attention after the fact is an issue. This seems to be commonplace anyway (in just thinking back about Amber Guyger's trial). It's just what this dude is saying is all. To me: he's just confirming what we (well some of us) already knew going into the deliberations is all.

Put it this way: even if I have to say so myself I made a good point on this thread some time ago. There is no way that a jury could have reached a verdict in such a short space of time, and in such a high profile case such as this, and with of its twists and turns. People on this thread have asked better and more intelligent questions than they, the jury, even had time to ask and then deliberate about (particularly when it comes to the pathology side of things).

Obviously I wasn't there so I'm making assumptions. But that's my logic. And this dude hasn't said anything to make me question my stance on this. Same goes for the alternate jurors and their take on things.

Again and personal opinion and observation: this trial's outcome, technically, was based on one particular video i.e. that one of the bystander in the crowd. Were it not for that video being played ad nauseam, and there was only the body cam footage, I doubt very much that the charges of murder would have stuck. Manslaughter MAYBE. But that video went viral and that was the end of that (or the beginning of all of the shit) (pick your poison).

And something that's not even come up on this thread and that I believe played a part (even if only subliminally) was his apparently pissing himself after he'd gone to greener pastures. If you take a look at the bystander's video: that's what it looks like. And I've seen comments about this elsewhere. And it gives a sort of human, maybe debauched, twist to the whole thing. But take a good look at the body cam footage. There was already water on the road to begin with. And it sure looks to me that if it wasn't that water then it was condensation from the vehicle's air conditioner. A stupid thing I know. But I can tell you it took me longer to peruse all of the video evidence and examine it than it did the jury to convict and this in spite of them having a whole bunch of other evidence to consider.

Good job I wasn't on that jury i.e. we'd still be in session!

Your post makes very good points. I agree with most of it. I tend to look at things from a Law perspective as opposed to an emotional one. I actually don't even usually get involved in these types of discussions. I was intrigued by how the American public was going to behave and I got my answer.

About half way through the trial I started to notice the demeanor of the Defense and was picking up nuances here and there. ( Yeah I know....too much of The Behavior Panel on You Tube). It felt really off and I thought that Nelson was on auto pilot. No passion. No decrease or increase in his tone of voice. A few other things. He acted like he was already preparing for a future trial in his head and his performance matched that mindset. Oh well. The man will be busy for the next few years anyway.

There's all kinds of high profile court cases going on here in 2021. Some may be pushed up to 2022. All kinds of freaking murder and mayhem. Floyd's was probably the only one with racial aggravators attached to them. Lot of damn parents over here are killing their children. I shake my head a lot.

Hope you have a good day over there in SA. I will do the same. I'm gonna log off for a bit and say a few prayers for CaptainHeroins flight up to the Angels and hope he makes a pillow soft landing.

 

[dalpat077]

but you made a big thing of his/their supposed anonymity before the verdict and the attention he received after.

and you added this: "had they found Officer Chauvin not guilty on any single one of the charges (let alone acquitted him): they'd not have been able to find this dude for dust nor for love nor money" which, of course, is completely hypothetical and unprovable but you assume is true in support of your argument.

you say cnow it's not an issue but you made it an issue, hence my confusion.

with respect, i think you're making too many assumptions.

alasdair

You're confusing me now!

To be clear:

My point was that no juror on that jury could have been stupid enough to think, going in, that they would remain anonymous for the rest of their days. One way or another their identities would have been exposed at some point in the future. Whether it be through media digging around, friends, family, you name it. But it would have happened.

My point with this dude that's doing the talking is that if they had found Officer Chauvin not guilty then I don't think he'd be running around giving interviews. As to whether or not he called a network up and offered up his services or if they tracked him down I know not. But whatever the case: he is no longer anonymous. It just doesn't matter now because of the verdict.

Obviously this is all hypothetical and we'll never know. And I'm no lawyer either. But which begs yet another question from a legal point of view: what if it is found, after a trial and verdict, that there was jury tampering during the trial (any trial)? Or jury intimidation? I'd say that BLM riots etc. could be construed as intimidation (unless there's another word for what I'm getting at or if there's no legal precedent such as this) (or if my definition of intimidation doesn't fit into law).

Put it another way (this an edit so hope you see it):

There is no way that the jurors could not have foreseen the mayhem that would have ensued, across the country I might add, had they found Officer Chauvin not guilty. And very few people that I know of, if any, myself excluded of course, would have been willing or able to live with the consequences of the fallout. Not to mention being only too acutely aware that their own lives and that of their families and whatever else would be in jeopardy (whether it be immediately or after a time for the reasons given above). I believe that applied to the jury. And I believe that will apply to any jury going forward should he be given a break. Hence my asking about simply having a judge as opposed to a jury should he be given another shot at this.

 

[dalpat077]

He acted like he was already preparing for a future trial in his head and his performance matched that mindset.

I actually recall you mentioning this back in the day (seems like a year ago already! ).

Could be you were 100% spot on the mark there.

To my credit though: I never watched any YouTube commentaries etc. I only watched the live feed. These YouTube analysts and hobbyists and observers make me want to lose my lunch. Mind you: there's probably a few that feel the same way about me and my comments! Say what you like: at least I'm self aware!

 

[Nurse Ratched]

When (and IF ) Nelson gets his re-trial things will be different. Nelson filed the motion in Court this morning requesting a new trial. I believe he was going to file it anyway in lieu of morons remarks and shenanigans at the rally. He knew he was going to file from the get go. No LIVE crews this time. Better juror vetting. A veritable boatload of things to change. Should be interesting.

 

[Nurse Ratched]

I actually recall you mentioning this back in the day (seems like a year ago already! ).

Could be you were 100% spot on the mark there.

To my credit though: I never watched any YouTube commentaries etc. I only watched the live feed. These YouTube analysts and hobbyists and observers make me want to lose my lunch. Mind you: there's probably a few that feel the same way about me and my comments! Say what you like: at least I'm self aware!

You and me kid !

 

[dalpat077]

When (and IF ) Nelson gets his re-trial things will be different. Nelson filed the motion in Court this morning requesting a new trial. I believe he was going to file it anyway in lieu of morons remarks and shenanigans at the rally. He knew he was going to file from the get go. No LIVE crews this time. Better juror vetting. A veritable boatload of things to change. Should be interesting.

Wanna open a law firm together? Along the lines of a Better Call Saul type trip! You be Kim. I be Saul. Somehow, and based on our posts on this topic, that seems to somehow be quite fitting! I just won't tell you all that I'm doing in the best interests of our clients is all!

 

[alasdairm]

thanks for the well-considered message @dalpat077 - clearer now.

Obviously this is all hypothetical and we'll never know.

indeed.

alasdair

 

[dalpat077]

I'm figuring this is going to be explosive! But some magnanimous statement to follow!

After carefully having considered the evidence I've reached the following conclusions now (and if nothing else demonstrates the value of the discussions that we have here):

Do I NOW think that Officer Chauvin should just get off scot-free? No! I'll let that sink in for a minute!

Now that most have recovered and gotten back up on their seats...

Why the change of verdict from my side?

Because I've spent (probably far too many) hours discussing this here and looking at videos of the incident etc. Not to mention having watched tons of other videos where so-called excessive or lethal force has been used by law enforcement (there are tons i.e. I just stopped posting links to them is all) (same shit different day type of thing). In all of the cases, obviously those cited on this thread at very least, such was justified by law enforcement. There was no other option and/or no time to have a think before pulling the trigger. This case was different. No matter that I truly don't believe it was Officer Chauvin's intention to kill George Floyd and no matter that I don't believe that his actions were 100% the cause of George Floyd's demise and no matter that I think he was waiting for the, then late, EMS to arrive: he did indeed have ample time to at very least keep asking Mr. Floyd if he'd calmed down and was going to behave (that type of thing). If not: well back to the ground he would have gone of course. Or whatever. You get the picture I'm sure. And put bluntly: had they turned Mr. Floyd over while he was still alive and kicking and only THEN he maybe had a heart attack or something? Could have turned out to be a different story (although I'm betting it still would not have been plain sailing for law enforcement).

But this leaves me with a dilemma in that I also still don't think that Officer Chauvin deserves to go to jail or to lose his career. This based on my steadfast belief that had Mr. Floyd not resisted arrest well then we'd not be here. Nothing at all to do with his past, his race, or anything else. Simply the way he carried on at the time. He too had ample time, and warning by the other officers, to take it down a notch. But he didn't.

And before anybody chimes in and brings up Officer Chauvin's prior arrest records: I cannot buy into that. Because if that be the case: well then you cannot simply ignore Mr. Floyd's background or circumstances either (as I believe I have done or, at very least, have attempted to do).

Where the middle of the road is on this one I do not know. Only thing that comes to mind: suspension, with no pay or benefits, for a period of time (however long that may be deemed fit by those in the know and in charge of affairs) (and if it be some years then so be it).

So there you have it.

But there's another message in all of this (and not one that I particularly went out of my way to make with this post and revelation). It's taken how long now for me to arrive at this conclusion? A fuck load longer than 10 hours! Fair enough: not my full time responsibility i.e. it's not like I was sequestered or anything like that! But my point being: this very different, now, than a knee jerk reaction. And put yet another way: to me the life of a decorated and experienced law enforcement officer is worth more than a mere 10 hours of my time.

The ONLY possible flaw in the above: I have to admit that the other videos that I've watched have played a huge role in my now arriving at my now verdict. I actually have no idea if a jury is allowed to consider other cases or take other incidents into account. I'm sure somebody will enlighten me. Put another way: had I gone into that jury, after having watched all of these other incidents, I'd have come to the same conclusion(s) as I have above at the time i.e. as opposed to after the fact.

And come to think of it now: that's the very reason why two of the original jurors recused themselves i.e. because they knew of the settlement. Do I think the settlement was justified? Not at all. Not that amount of money by ANY means. But I'd probably have seen it as a balancing of the scales type of thing i.e. nothing going to bring Mr. Floyd back, they've got their money and some justice, and Officer Chauvin has to find something else to amuse himself with for a few years (and which, believe it or not, could even have ended up being worse than having to go to prison).

And now it's time for that Alprazolam! I've a feeling I'm going to need it right after I hit the "Post reply" button!

 

[dalpat077]

thanks for the well-considered message @dalpat077 - clearer now.



indeed.

alasdair

No problem. And thanks for giving me the chance and opportunity to clarify.

I'm figuring that by the time you get to, and read, this post you'll be having palpitations! Sorry!

 

[Nurse Ratched]

Wanna open a law firm together? Along the lines of a Better Call Saul type trip! You be Kim. I be Saul. Somehow, and based on our posts on this topic, that seems to somehow be quite fitting! I just won't tell you all that I'm doing in the best interests of our clients is all!

Freakin' Classic !! Love that show. I'm game.

Aeronautics and Law have always been my interests. I enjoy shooting the shit with you. Your'e good peeps

 

[Droppersneck]

Most of the more sober people here knew the first trial was a show trial to advert billions in destruction and death. Chauvin will get retried and should get off, but may hopefully see some lesser charges. That juror lying about being at a protest is defined grounds to be retried. Well, unless he’s unlucky enough to go behind an activist judge that puts politics before the law/justice.

 

[Zephyn]

Cop charged with murder after shooting man in car | Boing Boing

Jonathan Brown, a police officer in Bristol, Va., was charged with murder this week after shooting and killing Jonethen Kohler, a local resident. Brown, on duty and in uniform, was among officers r…

boingboing.net

I don't know if its algorithms matching to my musings and searches, or if maybe police are starting to be held more accountable. You'd think the corporate media would be trying to maintain the status quo by reporting on these more, or even faking a bunch of them

 

[Burnt Offerings]

Most of the more sober people here knew the first trial was a show trial to advert billions in destruction and death. Chauvin will get retried and should get off, but may hopefully see some lesser charges. That juror lying about being at a protest is defined grounds to be retried. Well, unless he’s unlucky enough to go behind an activist judge that puts politics before the law/justice.

How does the assertion that Chauvin's conviction occurred against the backdrop of large amounts of political pressure to convict (a claim I feel is reasonable btw) square with the assertion that Chauvin will somehow get off after being convicted of murder?

 

[dalpat077]

Cop charged with murder after shooting man in car | Boing Boing

Jonathan Brown, a police officer in Bristol, Va., was charged with murder this week after shooting and killing Jonethen Kohler, a local resident. Brown, on duty and in uniform, was among officers r…

boingboing.net

I don't know if its algorithms matching to my musings and searches, or if maybe police are starting to be held more accountable. You'd think the corporate media would be trying to maintain the status quo by reporting on these more, or even faking a bunch of them

I don't even have to look at any videos or read anything more than the below taken straight from the link:

"As they searched the area, they spotted Kohler sat in his car, who when questioned refused to exit the vehicle and began to drive away. Brown opened fire, killing him on the spot."

Just another day on the job. Or same shit different day.

I must admit: I'm surprised there's been no comments on my slight about turn post made earlier.

Whatever. This (relatively) new event just reinforces all OTHER than the Office Chauvin vs. George Floyd debacle.

As for the media (YouTube anyway): since this all started I get media releases or video clips of new cases, or recently released body cam footage of incidents that occurred a month ago or so, shoved down my throat just about every second day. I've just stopped posting about them. The broad strokes are always the same regardless of race, ethnicity, background, foreground, physical size, physical shape, hair color, eye color, underwear color, and whatever else! I can tell you this much though: what doesn't make the national headlines are law enforcement officers getting shot in the line of duty (unless it's some mass shooting by some deranged mother fuck). Funny that those only seem to make local TV stations. But the body cam footage is all there!

Tell you one other thing that's struck me:

I just happened to end up on some very old threads yesterday. There's been some cases (last year) that indeed had their own threads going. Must admit I'm intrigued by the about turn that this case has caused among some forum members. Maybe from that point of view this was some type of debauched landmark. Either that or those pushing the race vs. law enforcement narrative have done a fucking stellar job in just the past few months.

Same applies to some of the old political threads by the way. Go back a few years and see what people had to say about certain politicians and political parties and overlay them onto the most recent threads on the same politicians and political parties.

 

[Zephyn]

I don't even have to look at any videos or read anything more than the below taken straight from the link:

"As they searched the area, they spotted Kohler sat in his car, who when questioned refused to exit the vehicle and began to drive away. Brown opened fire, killing him on the spot."

Just another day on the job. Or same shit different day.

I must admit: I'm surprised there's been no comments on my slight about turn post made earlier.

Whatever. This (relatively) new event just reinforces all OTHER than the Office Chauvin vs. George Floyd debacle.

As for the media (YouTube anyway): since this all started I get media releases or video clips of new cases, or recently released body cam footage of incidents that occurred a month ago or so, shoved down my throat just about every second day. I've just stopped posting about them. The broad strokes are always the same regardless of race, ethnicity, background, foreground, physical size, physical shape, hair color, eye color, underwear color, and whatever else! I can tell you this much though: what doesn't make the national headlines are law enforcement officers getting shot in the line of duty (unless it's some mass shooting by some deranged mother fuck). Funny that those only seem to make local TV stations. But the body cam footage is all there!

Tell you one other thing that's struck me:

I just happened to end up on some very old threads yesterday. There's been some cases (last year) that indeed had their own threads going. Must admit I'm intrigued by the about turn that this case has caused among some forum members. Maybe from that point of view this was some type of debauched landmark. Either that or those pushing the race vs. law enforcement narrative have done a fucking stellar job in just the past few months.

Same applies to some of the old political threads by the way. Go back a few years and see what people had to say about certain politicians and political parties and overlay them onto the most recent threads on the same politicians and political parties.

You seem to be well intended enough, but that is confusing as it contradicts the fact that you keep saying that despite it being well known and accepted that, at least in the USA, it is illegal for an officer to shoot a fleeing suspect, especially if that is the entire reason for the encounter. You wanting to change that?

 

[dalpat077]

You seem to be well intended enough, but that is confusing as it contradicts the fact that you keep saying that despite it being well known and accepted that, at least in the USA, it is illegal for an officer to shoot a fleeing suspect, especially if that is the entire reason for the encounter. You wanting to change that?

Thanks for the compliment. Well I’ll take it as that anyway!

To be honest: I did not know that it is illegal. You sure about that? That would make sense if somebody just failed to stop e.g. speeding or stopped and then pulled away while the officer was sauntering over to them. But once stopped and having being given a direct order, not complying, and then attempting to drive away or run off? I don’t know. In other words: this a question not an assumption or statement. Be curious to know the actual nitty gritty of this now that you bring it up here.

The other scenario is if a vehicle and suspect have been already identified and happen to fly past an officer. From what I gather they will do what they can without shooting to stop the vehicle (unless an actual roadblock). Once that’s happened and if the suspect doesn’t comply and tries to make a run for it then they shoot.

Dunno. Interesting though.

 

[Nurse Ratched]

The Feds just filed charges against all 4 defendants re: Floyd trial. Charge: Violating Constitutional rights. The feds MAY have the 3 remaining just plea out ( including Chauvin as he is being charged by the Feds as well ) in their State trial ( which was supposed to take place in the Fall ) and then they all 4 proceed to Federal Court where justice will be determined quicker than next Fall. Guess the Feds want it bad and are actually ready to proceed so we shall see. I guess they can circumvent the states case against the 3 remaining defendants from the Floyd trial. I didn't know that.

I didn't catch the whole news brief. It just caught my attention on a news segment. Don't know if Chauvin cares at all, but I imagine the other 3 would rather take their chances with the State. I hear that with State imposed sentences that the prisoner gets good behavior and time off for other various reasons. I guess when the Feds convict you , you get nothing. Zilch. You get your sentence and you serve that exact amount of time.

 

[Zephyn]

Thanks for the compliment. Well I’ll take it as that anyway!

To be honest: I did not know that it is illegal. You sure about that? That would make sense if somebody just failed to stop e.g. speeding or stopped and then pulled away while the officer was sauntering over to them. But once stopped and having being given a direct order, not complying, and then attempting to drive away or run off? I don’t know. In other words: this a question not an assumption or statement. Be curious to know the actual nitty gritty of this now that you bring it up here.

The other scenario is if a vehicle and suspect have been already identified and happen to fly past an officer. From what I gather they will do what they can without shooting to stop the vehicle (unless an actual roadblock). Once that’s happened and if the suspect doesn’t comply and tries to make a run for it then they shoot.

Dunno. Interesting though.

Correct, in that circumstance, police are not authorized to use lethal force.