Topic: The Murder of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter.

[Buggy Eyes Alfredo]

Ben Crump           @AttorneyCrump

Yesterday a white man in Minnesota assaults a retail worker, rams into a police car, hits a cop in the head with a HAMMER, then drives off with the cop STILL ATTACHED to his vehicle. Was he shot? NO. Was he tased? NO. What a stark contrast to #DaunteWright...

https://www.twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1382793097722073088

[Mimi]

Cops shot 13 year old Adam Toledo in Chicago. Police, prosecutors and city lie about the shooting until pressured to release the video.

One of the cops who shot Breonna Taylor got offered a book deal.

A lot of you are putting faith in some sort of conviction in the Chauvin trial. I have none. The police are beyond reform.

[12C]

https://twitter.com/mikejason73/status/1383058380869230596?s=21
Interesting article as the guy says it’s not what you think

[TSC]

Cops shot 13 year old Adam Toledo in Chicago. Police, prosecutors and city lie about the shooting until pressured to release the video.

One of the cops who shot Breonna Taylor got offered a book deal.

A lot of you are putting faith in some sort of conviction in the Chauvin trial. I have none. The police are beyond reform.

Shocking footage of the 13 year old being shot.  It appears he put his arms up above his head after a chase and was promptly shot dead.

[Mumm-Ra]

The Adam Toledo video is just heartbreaking. The kid tosses the gun and turns around raising his hands and the cop shoots. It was a bad shooting, but a split second thing. The kid was running with gang, shooting at cars, so not some completely innocent victim - but in the moment of arrest he did everything right and complied. Had the cop just waited a half second to see his hands were empty, the arrest would have gone normally and it could have been the moment Adam's life turned around and got back on track. It's a terrible situation and there's a screengrab of the split second before he was shot with his hands in the air that is going to be plastered everywhere now as an example of ruthless murdering police. I feel terrible for Adam and his family, and I also feel terrible for the cop. This may go down like a lead balloon here but they are people too and chasing a shooter down an alleyway in Little Village at 2am is a situation nobody wants to be in - but someone has to do it. And at the crucial moment he made a mistake. The whole thing is an absolute tragedy.


Edited - first I put 'not some innocent angelic victim' then I changed that to 'not some completely innocent victim'. Using the word angelic gave the statement a loaded edge that was not intended.

[Mimi]

Sweet Christ. The violence not only of the body shot but also the armchair experts coming on to second guess the dead ones actions. To have the temerity to write “not some sweet angelic victim” about a 13 year old child.

[Mumm-Ra]

Sweet Christ. The violence not only of the body shot but also the armchair experts coming on to second guess the dead ones actions. To have the temerity to write “not some sweet angelic victim” about a 13 year old child.

No, not having that. Don't twist it. He was a child swept up in the gang life and that led to him being out shooting at cars. That means he was not harmless and he's not innocent. But he surrendered and should have been taken in peacefully. That's it. I will edit my post because it was not meant to be inflammatory, I am genuinely upset about this kid's death.

I get that using the word angelic made you think I was being sarky or something, it wasn't meant that way but I see how it came off.

[Hazell]

In the Chauvin trial the defence today had their medical "expert" and he suprised me by even coming across sleezier than the guy yesterday. Couldn't watch it all the way today, but saw parts of it (mostly the cross examination and what followed it) and some of the summaries on ABC. Again the prosecution did a pretty good job in taking apart the expert and his testimony. I have to say one of the worst things was that he suddenly brought up that carbon monoxide might have played a part in the death (even though he said it wasn't the cause). The only reason for him to bring that up was that George Floyd's head was on the pavement at the rear end of the car "where you'd expect the exhaust to be". As far as I can tell, the prosecution asked him in cross examination, if he confirmed whether the car was actually running or not and whether he had done research on what kind of car it was and what the data in terms of emissions is. Of course, he didn't do either of that. So he just came up with some shite to muddy the waters. Don't think it worked though as he was not really believable. And of course when I googled the guy there were reports about him being sued in Maryland or wherever he used to work as a medical examiner (or whatever his job was), because there were suspisions that he helped cover up for some cops who killed a man in their custody.

I saw that. The defence trying to muddy the waters is exactly what they've been doing, with constant references to George Floyd's health and drug use and other comments about adrenalin running through his body, him saying he can't breathe before he was put on the ground, ‘excited delirium’ etc. That's where the carbon monoxide reference came in even though I thought that was odd at the time because at the very least, it brought up the idea that it was the police who put him that close to the exhaust in the first place.

I initially thought Dr. Fowler (the defence witness) did ok from the defence's point view although maybe I was comparing him to the absolute horror show of the witness that preceded him. Having reflected on it though, he didn't really bolster their case either and was undermined at his cross examination and then even further yesterday when the prosecution recalled Dr. Tobin (the pulmonologist) who literally said Dr. Fowler 'was wrong' about his carbon monoxide theory given the blood tests results they have show he had a normal amount of that in him and that there are studies (which Dr. Fowler said he couldn’t find) about pressure on the back to narrowing the hypopharynx which affects breathing.

Also, when it comes to other specific things that Dr. Fowler talked about as being causes for George Floyd's death, like his heart issues and drug use, the prosecution used actual experts in those fields, like a cardiologist and toxicologist to state it was unlikely to be those factors. Add to that, I didn’t find his explanations particularly clear and he was the only medical expert they used and the retired use of force guy was hopeless, to me, they're in a weaker position than they were before they called any of their witnesses. I was expecting more witnesses from the defence to be honest but all they had was a cop who pulled George Floyd over in 2019 (if anything, that that cop didn't use any force on him reflects badly on Chauvin), another cop who was there and said he was worried about the crowd, the lady who was with George Floyd in his car who said he fell asleep, an incompetent Use of Force expert and one doctor. I know they wanted to bring the other guy that  was with George Floyd in the car (who ultimately wasn’t forced to testify given he intended to plead the 5th amendment) but I don’t think he would have made much difference.

They have closing arguments on Monday but it’s even more obvious to me what happened that day. The bystander video is still the most damning evidence of all, even after all these experts have been called and it’s still horrific to watch three police officers on top of a man as he dies. But no doubt the prosecution and the witnesses they called made a much better case than the defence did. The issue would be is that all it takes is for one juror to find him not guilty and you can never rule that out and that's what I think the defence's muddying the waters tactic is playing to. They haven't given a definitive reason for the cause of death but just postulated various ideas of it being anything other than Chauvin hoping that at least some stick.

[Hazell]

Cops shot 13 year old Adam Toledo in Chicago. Police, prosecutors and city lie about the shooting until pressured to release the video.

One of the cops who shot Breonna Taylor got offered a book deal.

A lot of you are putting faith in some sort of conviction in the Chauvin trial. I have none. The police are beyond reform.

I don't think it's that. The case in and of itself seems pretty clear cut but it just takes one person to have reasonable doubt and that's that. It's not a huge stretch to think that that could happen.

The wider issue I've seen is that while most police officers who testified thought Chauvin's use of force was ultimately excessive, they still thought at certain points before the police were on top of him, the police's actions were fine. That points to me to how police are trained and what's acceptable in the US. I saw the body cam footage from the trial and was shocked that the cops, when they initially approached George Floyd in his car about a suspected counterfeit $20, they did so with a gun in their hand. That to me is already escalating a situation. The rest of footage once they tried to force him into the back of the police car didn't look great either but that's deemed to be ok over there.

The same thing happened with Duante Wright which ultimately led to his shooting.

So, while I think there's a possibility that Chauvin gets convicted, I don't think wither way it'll change anything about the police in America, or the way black men in particular are dealt with by them.

[wenlock]

I am seeing people defending the police because of the fear they must feel knowing the person they are chasing might have a gun.

Other countries have armed police and gun ownership too though don't they yet they don't seem to have the same problems with their police or gun crime?

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

What other country has gun accesibiility / ownership even close to the USA?  Last I remember seeing a graphic months ago where guns in the US exceeded people per unit of measurement and was double the next country.

Google search yields this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081.amp

[jambutty]

By and large, Yank city dwellers want gun control.

Those outside cities want all their neighbors to know they have an AR for protection.

[Elmo!]

By and large, Yank city dwellers want gun control.

Those outside cities want all their neighbors to know they have an AR for protection.

That just makes it sound like opinion is fairly evenly split when it isn't. A clear majority of Americans want more gun control.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

[whtwht]

https://twitter.com/mikejason73/status/1383058380869230596?s=21
Interesting article as the guy says it’s not what you think

Link disappeared

[stoa]

I don't think it's that. The case in and of itself seems pretty clear cut but it just takes one person to have reasonable doubt and that's that. It's not a huge stretch to think that that could happen.

The wider issue I've seen is that while most police officers who testified thought Chauvin's use of force was ultimately excessive, they still thought at certain points before the police were on top of him, the police's actions were fine. That points to me to how police are trained and what's acceptable in the US. I saw the body cam footage from the trial and was shocked that the cops, when they initially approached George Floyd in his car about a suspected counterfeit $20, they did so with a gun in their hand. That to me is already escalating a situation. The rest of footage once they tried to force him into the back of the police car didn't look great either but that's deemed to be ok over there.

The same thing happened with Duante Wright which ultimately led to his shooting.

So, while I think there's a possibility that Chauvin gets convicted, I don't think wither way it'll change anything about the police in America, or the way black men in particular are dealt with by them.

The way I see it, the trial has gone as well as it could from the prosecutions point of view. There is video evidence, their witnesses (from the ones from the crowd up to the experts) were basically all great. The defence on the other hand presented a very weak case with experts that are hired guns and came across like that. Starting from the one guy saying he doesn't need to look at all the papers he gets to the other guy making claims without having done any research. I get that all it takes is one juror who for whatever reason has doubt about the prosecutions case, but at the same time, if Chauvin gets off, you might as well never ever prosecute a police officer and let them do whatever they want. Chauvin at least has to be found guilty of manslaughter.

I think the more problematic case in terms of the officer being acquitted will be the killing of Daunte Wright, because it's easier for the defence to offer a convincing case. I just don't see this in the Chauvin trial. Jurors have seen with their own eyes what happened and it was not a case of a quick decision having deadly consequences. It was a case of three police officers sitting on a dying man for more than nine minutes without even properly checking whether the man has an issue.

At the end of the day, this trial was never going to change anything in terms of how policing is done in the US. It will have an impact, because of the public discussion that goes along with it, but there are loads more issues that need to be adressed before non-white people are treated equally and those police killings stop.

[Lone Star Red]

By and large, Yank city dwellers want gun control.

Those outside cities want all their neighbors to know they have an AR for protection.

And I don't blame either side for feeling the way they do (albeit I'm less understanding about owning an AR versus understanding not wanting the government to exercise more control over gun ownership).

[Hazell]

The way I see it, the trial has gone as well as it could from the prosecutions point of view. There is video evidence, their witnesses (from the ones from the crowd up to the experts) were basically all great. The defence on the other hand presented a very weak case with experts that are hired guns and came across like that. Starting from the one guy saying he doesn't need to look at all the papers he gets to the other guy making claims without having done any research. I get that all it takes is one juror who for whatever reason has doubt about the prosecutions case, but at the same time, if Chauvin gets off, you might as well never ever prosecute a police officer and let them do whatever they want. Chauvin at least has to be found guilty of manslaughter.

I agree, even the defence's expert witnesses said a reasonable police officer would have begun CPR once they were told they couldn't find a pulse. So in that respect, at least some of the charges should stick.

Just always a little bit wary.

I think the more problematic case in terms of the officer being acquitted will be the killing of Daunte Wright, because it's easier for the defence to offer a convincing case. I just don't see this in the Chauvin trial. Jurors have seen with their own eyes what happened and it was not a case of a quick decision having deadly consequences. It was a case of three police officers sitting on a dying man for more than nine minutes without even properly checking whether the man has an issue.

Yeah, the Chauvin trial is relatively straightforward compared to what I think will happen when/if Kim Potter goes to trial, understandably so.

At the end of the day, this trial was never going to change anything in terms of how policing is done in the US. It will have an impact, because of the public discussion that goes along with it, but there are loads more issues that need to be adressed before non-white people are treated equally and those police killings stop.

Agreed, policing itself needs to be looked at really, it's all very well the police washing their hands of Chauvin but that in itself won't change all that much overall.

[whtwht]

Ben Crump           @AttorneyCrump

Yesterday a white man in Minnesota assaults a retail worker, rams into a police car, hits a cop in the head with a HAMMER, then drives off with the cop STILL ATTACHED to his vehicle. Was he shot? NO. Was he tased? NO. What a stark contrast to #DaunteWright...

https://www.twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1382793097722073088

Nothing to see here. Move along now. This guy was clearly no threat.
Anyway he might be mentally ill and needs his meds.

[HomesickRed]

No, not having that. Don't twist it. He was a child swept up in the gang life and that led to him being out shooting at cars. That means he was not harmless and he's not innocent. But he surrendered and should have been taken in peacefully. That's it. I will edit my post because it was not meant to be inflammatory, I am genuinely upset about this kid's death.

I get that using the word angelic made you think I was being sarky or something, it wasn't meant that way but I see how it came off.

Chauvin would hopefully be manslaughter at worst.
Duante Wright is an odd one and it would seem grossly negligent at least to confuse a taser with a gun.
Adam Toledo?  I really feel for him, but only because of his age. An 'innocent' 13 year old, he almost certainly was not. He knew the risks, and held on to a gun until the split second he turned around.
I wish the cop hadn't killed him, but I can't automatically condemn him either, because I've never chased someone with a gun in the dead of night and been a millisecond from my own death.

[Chakan]

In the US it’s safer to be a white person storming the capitol trying to over throw the government than a black person doing literally anything

[HomesickRed]

Nothing to see here. Move along now. This guy was clearly no threat.
Anyway he might be mentally ill and needs his meds.

It sounds almost like you wished he was?
Rather than almost pull the race card, be happy that in this case, nobody died.
Plenty of white people die at the hands of police in the USA too. And plenty of black and white people aren't just automatically shot.
We don't hear about those cases though.

[HomesickRed]

In the US it’s safer to be a white person storming the capitol trying to over throw the government than a black person doing literally anything

On the face of it yes, but they were a very bizarre set of circumstances that day. One shot demonstrator could have tuned into a very public bloodbath.
Are you glad, or disappointed that didn't happen?

[GreatEx]

versus understanding not wanting the government to exercise more control over gun ownership).

I find your choice of words interesting because to me, in a situation where the vast majority of the people want gun control and the government creates legislation to that end that is applied by law enforcement, it is effectively the people who are exercising control. It's this particularly American condition to regard all government as tyranny.

[12C]

Link disappeared

Here’s the CNN link

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/opinions/daunte-wright-caron-nazario-police-and-black-lives-bailey/index.html

[John C]

This weeks A Word pod discusses the killing of Daunte Wright
https://slate.com/podcasts/a-word/2021/04/daunte-wright-death-police-reform-possible

[Hij]

The Adam Toledo video is just heartbreaking. The kid tosses the gun and turns around raising his hands and the cop shoots. It was a bad shooting, but a split second thing. The kid was running with gang, shooting at cars, so not some completely innocent victim

If he had his hands up with no weapon when he was shot then by rights that makes him an innocent victim for me.

Courts should decide punishments, not cops.

Same goes for the fella who tried to run away. Throw some more charges at him for evading arrest or whatever the actual charge is over there.

We had similar with Mark Duggan. The actual gun was found on the other side of a wall. He was likely blasted twice having already tried to dispose of the evidence.

I get what you are saying in terms of 'innocent victim' as in they wouldn't have been in the situation without possessing a gun in the first place. It's easy for me to say just arrest them when human beings who are scared decide to shoot in a panic.

All of this happening in perpetuity in the USA just shows how fucking stupid it is that there is such a plethora of firearms about. It's insane.

[GreatEx]

I do find it striking in these videos how fearful the cops appear to be. Lot's of frantic screaming and swearing - no sense of control or calm authority. The one time I had a run in with police in America was when I tried to sneak into Times Square after it had been closed off on NYE 1999, a bunch of NYPD came running at me screaming "get the fuck out of here, fucking get out motherfucker" and so forth... I actually remember that more vividly than the completely unnecessary punch they threw at me (thankfully missed) as I was already walking away, or the rough way they pinned my arm behind my back. Seems like they have a lot of people temperamentally unsuited to the job, or not properly trained in how to deal with situations in a calm and rational way.

[jambutty]

Shit job. Dangerous.  Can get you killed or maimed.  Low pay, swing shifts, low job satisfaction, everybody hates you. Newly emboldened people asking how many people you killed today, catcalls behind your back. Packing all the time, never completely off duty.

Reform yes. Defund? NFW.

Who's gonna chase bad guys with guns down alleys at night or face down drug gangs armed to the teeth?

[ElDuderino]

Shit job. Dangerous.  Can get you killed or maimed.  Low pay, swing shifts, low job satisfaction, everybody hates you. Newly emboldened people asking how many people you killed today, catcalls behind your back. Packing all the time, never completely off duty.

Reform yes. Defund? NFW.

Who's gonna chase bad guys with guns down alleys at night or face down drug gangs armed to the teeth?

Racist c*nts who can't wait to shoot a black person, kind of the problem

[liverbloke]

Shit job. Dangerous.  Can get you killed or maimed.  Low pay, swing shifts, low job satisfaction, everybody hates you. Newly emboldened people asking how many people you killed today, catcalls behind your back. Packing all the time, never completely off duty.

Reform yes. Defund? NFW.

Who's gonna chase bad guys with guns down alleys at night or face down drug gangs armed to the teeth?

so you saying that they didn't read the job description before applying?

[jambutty]

Racist c*nts who can't wait to shoot a black person, kind of the problem

Nail. Head. Most people become cops just to shoot black people.

[BarryCrocker]

Nail. Head. Most people become cops just to shoot black people.

That's an extraordinary statement. There are roughly 700k cops in the USA and you're saying more than 350k of them are in their job just to shoot black people.

[jambutty]

It was an absurd extrapolation of the Dude's theory.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

All this will just keep happening until the US drags itself into the 21st century.

There is a lot of progressive, exciting and innovative stuff there and some amazing people, but quite a few of their laws, attitudes and social structure seems pretty off.

When America split from the UK (And other countries) - the idea seemed to be to establish a brave new world - one free from tyranny and tyrants, with all laws written to support and protect the common man..

.. but now they seem to be dragged back by these laws which while progressive when they wrote them are now hundreds of years old.

Not sure if that's a throwback to Americans I've met that seem a little defensive when they talk about the US History (Compared to say, the UK which is obviously much, much older) to enshrine stuff..

.. I could be wrong, but the UK although obviously years ago a state that actually had to go through the progression of history to the modern state we see today has mutated and changed and adopted. Has the US done the same in the same way? Obviously they have had plenty of progression and first-of-a-kind laws and rulings, but whenever I see politics shows or dramas that look at changes within the system, there seems an awful lot of references to 'The constitution' - are amendments enough? Is a hundreds-of-years-old set of documents with a ton of amendments enough for a vibrant, modern, diverse and huge nation?

"The Right to Bear Arms" is one such thing that jumps out at you in discussions like this. Yeah, you can see why it was added and you can see amendments, but a lot of store of 'American Rights' seems to be in it. Not sure we have a similar thing here in the UK. Laws were drafted (Usually to represent the King or Queen or Barons or Landowners or whoever) and over time they were changed, merged, removed, replaced or updated. I don't often hear someone in the UK shouting "This is my right as a British Citizen" in the same way that Americans seem to say such things.

People in the UK might have been annoyed by restrictions placed on arms, but I haven't seen them shouting about it in the same way. Are we are more 'head down, don't protest' group than Americans? I'm not sure we are. There are plenty of clued-up, passionate people on both sides of the pond. The difference is that the UK is a far more 'mature' country - only because it's been around an age and has had to adapt, change and progress over the centuries.

[jambutty]

The Constitution refers to a 'well regulated militia' bearing arms.

State's rights. Each State can have its own militia.  Regional National Guard kinda thing under some semblance of national oversight.

Local fringe groups have subverted the concept.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The Constitution refers to a 'well regulated militia' bearing arms.

State's rights. Each State can have its own militia.  Regional National Guard kinda thing under some semblance of national oversight.

Local fringe groups have subverted the concept.

My question is how is it possible to have a well regulated militia' in a modern country?

Yeah when the document was written hundreds of years ago it might have made sense.

[FlashGordon]

Shit job. Dangerous.  Can get you killed or maimed.  Low pay, swing shifts, low job satisfaction, everybody hates you. Newly emboldened people asking how many people you killed today, catcalls behind your back. Packing all the time, never completely off duty.

Reform yes. Defund? NFW.

Who's gonna chase bad guys with guns down alleys at night or face down drug gangs armed to the teeth?

You do know the whole concept of defunding the police isn't actually getting rid of the police. The theory is to move some of the money from their budgets to other areas that might actually help prevent having bad guys with guns in the first place.

I'm sure you knew that though.

[liverbloke]

All this will just keep happening until the US drags itself into the 21st century.

There is a lot of progressive, exciting and innovative stuff there and some amazing people, but quite a few of their laws, attitudes and social structure seems pretty off.

When America split from the UK (And other countries) - the idea seemed to be to establish a brave new world - one free from tyranny and tyrants, with all laws written to support and protect the common man..

.. but now they seem to be dragged back by these laws which while progressive when they wrote them are now hundreds of years old.

Not sure if that's a throwback to Americans I've met that seem a little defensive when they talk about the US History (Compared to say, the UK which is obviously much, much older) to enshrine stuff..

.. I could be wrong, but the UK although obviously years ago a state that actually had to go through the progression of history to the modern state we see today has mutated and changed and adopted. Has the US done the same in the same way? Obviously they have had plenty of progression and first-of-a-kind laws and rulings, but whenever I see politics shows or dramas that look at changes within the system, there seems an awful lot of references to 'The constitution' - are amendments enough? Is a hundreds-of-years-old set of documents with a ton of amendments enough for a vibrant, modern, diverse and huge nation?

"The Right to Bear Arms" is one such thing that jumps out at you in discussions like this. Yeah, you can see why it was added and you can see amendments, but a lot of store of 'American Rights' seems to be in it. Not sure we have a similar thing here in the UK. Laws were drafted (Usually to represent the King or Queen or Barons or Landowners or whoever) and over time they were changed, merged, removed, replaced or updated. I don't often hear someone in the UK shouting "This is my right as a British Citizen" in the same way that Americans seem to say such things.

People in the UK might have been annoyed by restrictions placed on arms, but I haven't seen them shouting about it in the same way. Are we are more 'head down, don't protest' group than Americans? I'm not sure we are. There are plenty of clued-up, passionate people on both sides of the pond. The difference is that the UK is a far more 'mature' country - only because it's been around an age and has had to adapt, change and progress over the centuries.

the difference Andy mate - the gun lobby

[Indomitable_Carp]

"The Right to Bear Arms" is one such thing that jumps out at you in discussions like this. Yeah, you can see why it was added and you can see amendments, but a lot of store of 'American Rights' seems to be in it. Not sure we have a similar thing here in the UK. Laws were drafted (Usually to represent the King or Queen or Barons or Landowners or whoever) and over time they were changed, merged, removed, replaced or updated. I don't often hear someone in the UK shouting "This is my right as a British Citizen" in the same way that Americans seem to say such things.

The US Constitution was actually heavily influenced by the Bill of Rights 1689 passed by the English Parliament and King, that is actually still in effect in this country today. This Bill of Rights also included the rights of Protestants to bear arms. Indeed, one of the justifications that American settlers used to break from British rule was that they were not being properly afforded the rights granted by the Bill of Rights 1689.

However you are right, our constitutional system is one that is constantly changing based on precedent. That is the difference between a written and unwritten constitution. Although the Bill of Rights 1689 is still valid today, obviously it has been chopped and changed plenty since then and new precedents and laws have come to the fore.

[jambutty]

You do know the whole concept of defunding the police isn't actually getting rid of the police. The theory is to move some of the money from their budgets to other areas that might actually help prevent having bad guys with guns in the first place.

I'm sure you knew that though.

True. Some of the defunders now want to abolish jails.