The conviction of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was undermined this week after the previously anonymous Juror #52 went public with interviews to discuss his experience on the jury and support the movement to curtail police abuse. The problem was not the public disclosure of his identity (which jurors can elect to do) but what his self-identification triggered on the Internet. A picture soon emerged showing Brandon Mitchell wearing a Black Lives Matter T-shirt with a reference to the death of George Floyd. The image was raised as contradicting his answers in voir dire and raising an appellate question as to juror bias that could be used to challenge the conviction.
The photo trending on social media was originally posted on Facebook in August 2020 and shows Mitchell wearing a hat that says “Black Lives Matter” and a T-shirt that says “BLM” with the words, “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks,” a common reference to the death of Floyd. The photo was posted by his uncle Travis Mitchell with the caption “The next Generation being socially active representing in DC my son Marzell, my nephew Brandon Rene Mitchell, and brotha Maurice Jauntiness Johnson.”
There is, of course, nothing wrong with the photo and it reflected the pride of his uncle when they went to march in Washington to commemorate MLK’s famous 1963 “I have a dream” speech. The march emphasized the campaign against police abuse and obviously many protested the killing of Floyd. Mitchell insists that he did not go to protest the Floyd killing.
The issue is really how Mitchell answered the voir dire questions. For example, Mitchell answers in the negative to two questions:
“Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?” one question read, according to the newspaper.
“Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?”
On March 15, Mitchell was also asked by the judge on March 15 if he was aware of the Chauvin case and George Floyd. He responded by saying that he’d heard “some basic info about trial dates, etc from the news”, but not the sort of information “that would keep him from serving as an impartial juror.”
I am not sure why the defense could not have located this picture on the Internet, which may raise a collateral issue in any challenge. However, this is still a credible basis for further investigation and possible challenge.
In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961), the Supreme Court stated “the minimal standards of due process” demand a fair hearing before competent and impartial jurors. See also United States v. Tegzes, 715 F.2d 505, 507 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799 (1975)(“constitutional standard of fairness requires that the criminally accused have ‘a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.’”). In cases like Pena-Rodriguez, the Supreme Court has held that statements in the jury room showing racial bias justifies reversal. The line is more blurry on political bias, but few cases involve a juror who previously discussed the defendant and his case.
The controversy is strikingly similar to discoveries made about Juror 1261 in the trial of Trump associate Roger Stone. I wrote a number of columns about Tomeka Hart who clearly gave false or misleading answers in voir dire. Hart is a Democratic activist and critic of the Trump administration. She not only participated in undisclosed protests and posted anti-Trump statements on the Internet but specifically discussed the Stone case.
However, District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson engaged in willful blindness to excuse Hart’s conduct and avoid ordering a new trial. I predicted that the court would dismiss the motion rather than defend the defendant’s right to an unbiased jury. The court simply brushed aside these clear examples of bias. Jackson wrote:
“The defendant has not shown that the juror lied; nor has he shown that the supposedly disqualifying evidence could not have been found through the exercise of due diligence at the time the jury was selected. Moreover, while the social media communications may suggest that the juror has strong opinions about certain people or issues, they do not reveal that she had an opinion about Roger Stone, which is the opinion that matters . . . To the extent one could consider any of the social media posts to be inconsistent with the juror’s questionnaire, they do not warrant a new trial because they do not meet the legal test for something that has been ‘newly discovered.’ [A] defendant seeking a new trial must establish that the information presented in his motion could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence.”
I do agree with Judge Jackson that there is question of whether this information “could …have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence.” The court notes
“the foreperson’s views were certainly not hidden at the time of jury selection. The juror’s personal affiliation with Democratic politics was set forth in her written answers. She said straight out that she had opinions about the “officials” on the list of people who might be mentioned in the case, and Donald Trump was the most prominent, if not the only, ‘official’ named.”
This was publicly available on social media and the question remains why the defense was not aware of the past expressions of political bias by Hart. One would have thought that Hart’s political past would have caused greater scrutiny of her past statements but, as I discussed previously, the transcript shows only a brief and matter-of-fact examination.
Jackson’s decision reveals the added burden faced by defendants in expensive, high-profile trials. Judge do not want to go through the cost and trauma of a new trial, particularly with the threat of rioting. They talk a good game of the guarantee of a fair trial, but when faced with juror bias, they rarely act to defend it in such cases.
It is still not clear the extent of any bias in the case of Mitchell. Some reports indicate that he may have done podcasts on police brutality and the George Floyd case. That would be particularly serious, though we saw in the Stone trial the lengths that courts will go to avoid the obvious.
The defense will have the same uphill battle in the Chauvin appeal and the question is whether there is anything in addition to to photo. It will also have to be prepared to answer, as in the Stone case, why it did not perform a full Internet search on prospective jurors.
320 thoughts on “Juror 52: Does Chauvin Have A New Challenge Over Juror Brandon Mitchell?”
Many of my posts are discourses at length – they would be shorter if you would make fewer errors..
But none are “boastful”. You do not know what bloviate means.
Regardless, the claim is a non-sequitur.
“I’m not interested in getting drawn into a discussion of all of your opinions, and will only respond to two of your new claims.”
Odd response. You wish to narrowly limit our exchange – and concurrently dive into new areas.
Clearly, you have no rational basis for any limitations.
Regardless, you are free to limit yourself – not anyone else.
“Your claim “opinions can be FALSE too” is false.”
“This is a key distinction between fact-like claims and opinions.”
Much of your analysis is correct – but you have made a catagory error.
Only those things that are proveably true (or accepted as axioms) are Facts.
What is left is the domain of opinions, and it includes things that are likely true, possibily true, probably false and proveably false.
“Opinions are NOT T/F”
“you are constantly misusing words like “demand”.”
“That’s false too.”
Nope. You have misused, fact, opinion,
A demand is something that one intends to enforce.
I do not make demands of you. Though you constantly make demands of others oblivious of the fact that you can not enforce those demands, but with the clear understanding of all that you would if you could.
“You’ve easily repeated it a half dozen times or more.”
Repitition does not make something into a demand. Force or the threat of force does.
This is typical leftist nonsense – confusion over what is and is not force.
Have I tried to compel you to do anything ? Can I compell you ?
No. Further even if I actually had the power to compel you, there is very little that I would or could morally compel you to do.
That is a major difference between libertarians and the left.
No one has any doubt that given the power to do so – you, the left will FORCE others to do as you wish.
You have no grasp that the use of force MUST be justified.
Regardless, No one is compelling you to answer anything. No one has made a Demand of you.
You have not been subpeoned. You are not obligated to answer anything.
“These are additional examples of you [anonymous] making mistaken claims.”
No one has used force against you.
It is important not to misuse words that involve force. Doing so destroy’s language and meaning.
You claim I have made a “demand” – how is that different from a request ? How is that different from putting a gun to your head and requiring an answer ?
When you use words that involve force where there is no force, you are deliberately obfuscating the fact that there is no force.
Worse you are depriving language of the ability to communicate that actual force is or will be used.
When you understand law broadly – you ultimately end up lawless.
When you use words broadly – you ultimately destroy our ability to communicate.
You have serious problems with logic, and a complete inability to understand the consequences of your own choices.
This drives you to make claims that are totally unverifiable – and that you are not entitled to make.
You keep trying to pretend that all things are equal. In the real world almost nothing is equal.
Without grasping that you are doomed to make a continuous stream of poor arguments.
If you wish to make claims about your past posts – you can only credibly do so if you choose an identity.
If you do not wish to allow others to pick and choose your identity – your past, you must do so yourself.
“Not only is your claim false (this is one of your many mistaken claims),”
Of course it is not – my claim is inherently true by virtue of the fact that you post anonymously.
“but I already told you last night in my May 10, 9:32 PM comment,”
Do we have to go through this nonsense.
I have zero interest in what you claim to have said in the past – so long as you are posting as anonymous – unless it is useful to me.
You think that is unfair – get over it. Life is not fair, and YOU chose to post as anonymous.
So long as you do so, I am going to pick and choose when I decide a past anonymous comment is yours or not – as suits me.
Nor is that some special priviledge of mine – it is the right of ANYONE.
YOU post as anonymous – YOU created your own problem
No one ever owes you an apology for mis-identifying your past comments – you created an impossible to verify arrangement – YOU choice. You own the consequences.
“Apparently you’re too lazy to just do a text search on the time stamp”
No – I am not interested at all.
I have tried repeatedly to make this clear – so long as you post anonymously – it is impossible to prove or disprove identity, ownership of past comments.
YOU are not entitled to claim other anonymous posts when it suits.
But everyone else is entitled to tie past anonymous quotes to you like an albatross arround your neck.
““The burden of proof of other claims – particularly in discussions on blogs as opposed to formal proofs, varies with the credibility of the poster.”
That’s your opinion.”
No it is a fact.
“We’ve been through this before. ”
Yup, and you have lost REPEATEDLY.
Do you and I have the same credit rating ? It is unlikely. It is near certain that financial institutions throughout the world will need far more proof of trustworthiness from one of us than the other.
I would note that the efficient operation of the world depends on that.
“You have a burden of proof for your claim regardless of whether you’ll admit it now.”
Why would I admit something that is not true.
Only habitual liars have a higher burden of proof than anonymous posters.
That you do not grasp this simple fact – that we are NOT equal.
There is very little that any two of us are equal in.
We are not equally trustworthy.
We are not equally truthful.
We do not have equal reputations or integrity.
You have deliberately chosen to deprive yourself of trust, creditbility, integrity.
That is your right, but you can not do so and then demand trust, credibility and integrity.
It is absolutely certain there are many things you are better at than I, and many things I am better at that you.
We have different artictic ability, different musical ability. Different physical ability.
We have different health.
The accidents of our birth give us advantages and disadvantages that we have not earned.
That is reality. It is just how it is. Much of it is immutable. But not all.
You can change your credibility, integrity, and trust – but not so long as you post as anonymous.
You can NOT change the fact that so long as you post anonymously you have no claim to a reputation. An identity – positive or negative.
““Please do not quote me out of context.”
The quote from you is entirely on point, and just as you refuse my requests at times, I will refuse yours now.”
It is on YOUR point, but it is also out of context and wrong. As I have noted many many many times before.
Do you have to keep revisiting idiotic claims you have made before.
YOU are posting as anonymous – YOU have nearly the highest burdern of proof.
“”I have no obligation to prove anything to you.”
You have exactly the same burden of proof for factual claims as I do, as does everyone else.”
Completely false and we have been through this several times.
Below is a long indesputable rebutal.
But not a thorough one – there are many MORE proofs that two people DO NOT face the same burden of proof for factual claims.
That is just a ridiculously stupid argument. As I said, we have been over it before.
No two people are equal.
No two people have equal credibility or trustworthiness.
You continue to post as anonymous. You have deliberately chosen to subject yourself to a standard of proof that is only lower than that of habitual liars.
So we are clear – that is not a personal judgement. It is a fact. The only type of poster with less credibility and trust than anonymous posters are habitual liars.
Everyone else has a lower standard of proof.
I am not obligated to prove anything to you. Nor would it serve any purpose. You are not going to beleive anything you do not ferret out on your own – that is actually true of most of us.
I would further note that not only are people/posters not equal in credibility, trust and burden of proof, but specific types of claims are not equal, and specific venues have different burdens.
A claim of moral error has a strict burden of proof on the person making the initial claim.
If you claim someone is a liar – you are obligated to prove it to a high standard.
If you fail to do so others are free to call you a liar and that is self proven by your failure to prove the moral claim you initiated.
If you are seeking the publication of a scientific paper – every single step of your argument must be proven.
And only pure logic, mathematics, and in some instances statistics are allowed.
If you are making an argument on a blog, myriads of assumptions are acceptable in an argument – so long as they are actually proveable.
I do not have to prove that blacks commit more violence against asians than any other group every time I state that – because the data is readily available to anyone who wishes to look for it.
Conversely if I claim the sun will not rise tomorow – I face a high burden of proof.
““Please read what is written on the Tshirt that YOU posted.”
Nope, you have refused to admit that J52 referenced floyd and Chauvin which inarguably he did.
“Not only did I read it, I quoted it in one of my earlier comments, almost a week ago (the comment I posted on May 4, 2021 at 1:40 PM).”
You still do not grasp that you DO NOT get to claim an identity.
I am not going to bother to look up the post you reference, because it is irrelevant.
There is no means of establishing that it is yours even if it does say as you claim.
You do not get this. As long as you post as anonymous – you have NO IDENTITY.
Your past is whatever the rest of us choose to make it.
“I don’t wish to, which is why I haven’t.”
Massive error – you claim constantly that you are only discussing a very narrow issue – but not only aren;t you, but in this instance it is not possible to.
The legal standard that applies to J52 is the same as applies to Chauvin. When you take a position on one you either take the same position on the other or you are a hypocrite.
There is no “J52 is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, but not Chauvin”, there is no “J52 is entitled to absolute proof of every point against him, but Chauvin is not” there is no “J52 is entitled to all the loopholes, but Chauvin is not”
You can not address issues in a vacuum without being a hypocrite.
You are free to choose what you will and will not discuss, but you are NOT free to prohibit the rest of us from calling out your hypocracy.
Your very claim that you only care and only wish to discuss an issue that you artificially constraint – while your perogative, makes you incredibly hypocritical, further the rest of use are free to either judge you a hypocrite or to conclude your positions on other issues based on your positions on J52.
Quite simply you are engaged in transparent game playing.
If you do not wish to do something that is actually unrelated – then DON”T.
But if that issue is parallel – as it is, you can not preclude myself and others from concluding either hypocracy or equivalence on your part.
If you wish to constrain yourself – then DO THAT.
No one is stopping you – even when you are hypocritical about it.
But you do not actually do so. You engage on other topics quite litterally by bad logical games that you are not.
And you are actually making a formal logic error.
If the condition is false – you are done, you can not reach any conclusion.
of course that presume the condition actually is false.
No – you are demonstrating the problems with anonymous posting.
Each post you make is both unique standing alone, and can be connected to others as the rest of us see fit.
YOU chose a complete lack of identity – any confusion on the rest of our part is the consequence of your choices.
Further – you can not even prove that any assignment of posts to you is error, nor that refusing to connect prior posts of yours is error.
This is your problem not mine.
Separately – yes, actually you constantly make black and white errors in contexts where they are clearly mistakes.
Your the one posting anonymously.
No one owes you anything.
You do not and can not have a track record of credibility. That is a consequences of posting anonymously.
Further you have ALREADY misrepresented the facts.
While you are correct that the Juror 52 Tshirt that YOU provided – clearly you know how to do an internet search has MLK and BLM on it
Not Chauvin and Floyd
AND I HAVE ACKNOWEDGED THAT.
It ALSO says prominently “Get Your Knee off Our Necks” a crystal clear reference to Floyd and Chauvin.
So far I have heard Zip from you regarding this.
As you note these events are Multi-Faceted. MLK and BLM are certainly facets.
Even Juror 52’s Tshirt makes clear that the event he went to was not SOLELY about Floyd/Chauvin.
But the same TShirt makes CLEAR that Floyd/Chauvin WERE/ARE not merely a focus of these events, but one that caught the interest of
Juror 52. I suspect that Juror 52 had many Event Tshirts to choose from.
We do not live in Bernie Sanders left wing nut utopia. Where there is one brand of cornflakes, one brand of deoderant, one brand of sneakers – because that is more efficient. We live in a world were communist protestors have myriads of different tshirt messages to choose from and therefore we CAN draw narrow conclusions from the messages that the choose.
You have YET to acknowledge that.
If you wish to be credible – you have to accept the evidence as it is, not as you wish it to be.
And YOUR OWN evidence undermines your argument.
You say I must provide proof to satisfy you – poppy cock.
Regardless YOU have already provided it.
You seem to think the debate is over images. It is not, it is over evidence of potential Bias.
And YOU provided that evidence, yet will not own your own facts.
This is not a word game. It is an examination of facts.
Ditch 52 go to the next on the list. Nothing hard about that decision. Anything else would be on it’s face racist
Let’s get another look at that ‘Systemic racism’ thing
US IS SYSTEMICALLY RACIST AGAINST WHITES!
Here is a good summary of the reasons for a new trial, many of which are being discussed among us.
I would like to highlight for ATS the Tshirt that the Juror was wearing.
It was NOT a BLM Tshit.
It was NOT an MLK Tshirt.
It was a “Get your Knee off our necks” TShirt featuring Floyd and Chauvin.
It was inarguably a statement of guilt regarding Chauvin prior to trial.
You are free to say whatever you want – but you are not entitled to do so and get on a jury.
The law is irrelevant in this case. The entire Chauvin trial is a sham. The case is strictly a political one and the law and the facts never mattered. The case is all about the power of the Authoritarian State and its Mob Rule and Leftist Political and Presstitute allies. Chauvin is a political prisoner of the Authoritarian State.
One cannot explain the deaths of so many Black people in the US if I does not admit that White anti-Black racism exists and a significant proportion of Turley Blog commentators are incapable of admitting this. They can recognize Black anti-White racism which does indeed exist but racism on its own does not damage but racism in conjunction with an asymmetric power relationship does. Since European settlement of the Americas the privilege hierarchy has placed Whites in domination over Blacks which means Black anti-White racism is incapable of causing noticeable damage to Whites.
Most of the things that most people believe about racism are WRONG:-
BELIEF Racism is rare human behaviour.
TRUTH No it is not, examination of the minds of the vast majority of members of species homo sapiens sapiens would find racism and if not racism other prejudicial ~isms driven by the same mechanisms of individual and collective psychology. These can be described as SCAPEGOATING beliefs and behaviours. They include:-
1/ Economic class Prejudice;
2/ Misogyny, ie hatred of women especially ones who believe they are entitled to the same rights as men;
3/ Religious prejudice, ie hatred of those who worship the wrong supernatural beings;
4/ Hatred of the residents of other (EVIL) nations, Russia, China, Venuzuela, any Muslim nation ………;
5/ Criminals (blue collar and drug criminals) not respectable white collar criminals who righteously embezzle a few billion here or there;
6/ People with WRONG political beliefs eg The EVIL woke or Trump supporters;
Most people if accused of harboring one of these ~isms will indignantly deny and their hurt feelings will not be feigned. “I don’t have a INSERT PREJUDICIAL ~ISM HERE bone in my body” they will say. But prejudicial ~isms do not reside in the bones but in the grey and white matter of the brain. Most people who deny a prejudice will think they are telling the truth because they believe that their conscious mind is all of their mind and they are not consciously prejudiced. People sometimes acknowledge that they have an unconscious mind but the underestimate its size and importance. The unconscious is a mere 99.99%+ of the human mind. The conscious mind is a little annex that serves as the minds post office, receiving or sending verbal or written messages from or to other minds. In fact most of our thinking is done by the unconscious. We may think that our conscious minds are doing the work but in fact the unconscious is picking up problem resolution desires from the conscious and working on them in the background. We do not feel tired because of its working it is as if we have a powerful AI working for us powered by an unknown source not from our own resources. Eventually an answer may appear in the conscious.
Most of the time we think we believe our consciousness is doing it but in fact thoughts are rising up out of the unconscious. Skilled thinkers are using conscious and unconscious minds together like a man with a calculator.
The unconscious is the source of many problems. Sometimes beliefs especially moral beliefs picked up and installed in the unconscious over a lifetime are silly and cause problem behaviour but if these beliefs never rise to consciousness one cannot examine them to realize how silly they are. For most people prejudicial ~isms do not reside in the conscious mind under the heading “Things and people that I hate” rather they reside in the unconscious under the Rubric “Unarguable beliefs that no sensible person would dispute” aka “common sense.
Some common sense beliefs are COMMON SENSE but nasty stereotype constituting perjorative beliefs about members of species homo sapiens sapiens who are not human in the sense of being entitled to those rights that politically correct WOKE snowflakes from the latte sipping and chardonnay swilling classes refer to as human rights are also found here. We need terms for these people, I suggest UNPEOPLE, UNTERMENCHEN, DISPOSABLES, TORTURABLES or GOD’S STEPCHILDREN.
The majority of Whites have such nasty stereotypes of Black people if they don’t know any Blacks, if they know some Blacks who are acquaintances they may allocate them the status of honorary human but of course other whites who do not know them will see them as UNPEOPLE.
Some actions are controlled by the conscious mind but others performed under stress or fear or where there is a sense of urgency come direct from the unconscious hence police policing Blacks are often acting under the control of anti-Black prejudice. There is no surprise that George Floyd died.
I believe Chauvin was of the belief that Blacks especially big black males have evil magic powers of superhuman strength. Chauvin was paralysed by fear that if he let Floyd breathe Floyd would use his EVIL MAGIC to kill him and the other 3 police. He believed that as long as Floyd was breathing Floyd was a threat and only stopping him from breathing would render him under control. Considered rationally this thinking is crazy, but because it is hidden in the unconscious it cannot be disputed. There is a term for such beliefs “IMPLICIT RACISM” and only psychological treatment of most Whites including some who are proud of their WOKENESS but especially agents of social control will stop the excessive Black death toll.
To give you an idea of sillyness in the unconscious I will tell you what I have always believed and still believe about sexual morality. I was brought up a Christian and exposed as a child to the taboo against giving children any information about sex. A taboo is a very strong negative message and I never spoke about sex to my parents my teachers or anyone except a boy up the street. My parents are dead now but I have never explained to them why I avoided girls (and they never asked). I came to the conclusion that the foundational belief of Christianity can be expressed in 3 words and a punctuation mark in capitals and 100 point type “SEX IS SIN!” My father was a Presbyterian minister and I have been at many marriage services that he conducted. When he was reading the bit about “marriage being an honourable state” I always imagined the sounds of sniggering and tittering, “they are so evil that they are getting married to do the sex thing, snigger titter”. I have never approved of marriage considering not much better than rape. In my view Christianity should never have escaped from the 1st century AD if Christians had had the decency to follow their beliefs. Not all the ideas came from the taboo, there were also the public statements of sex obsesses evangelicals and anti-pornography campaigners. I once to my everlasting shame once advocated support for an organization called “the Welfare and Decency League”. In the first or second year high school Ion the way home from school I had a reverse Pauline conversion. It was a beautiful spring day and I was walking up a flight of steps through the bush. On one step I was admiring the beauty of God’s handiwork and on the next I decided that the idea of God was useless as it explained nothing, if God could exist without something creating him/her/it then so could the universe, but this did not free me from my Christian beliefs. Beliefs are locked in to emotions not rationality.
It is only in the last 4 years that I have uncovered this toxic belief but I choose not to change it, it is far too late.
I am as attracted to female beauty as any male but would avoid or in fact ignore or act hostile to any girl that attracted me. In 1989 my next door neighbours were a Chinese student and his wife who had Australian permanent residence as a result of the Tiananmen square massacre. The wife’s really cute younger sisters visited for a period of only six months to learn English at one of the private English language colleges that had sprung up like mushrooms at that time to fleece foreign students. Because she was leaving in in six months I did not need to think of her as potential girlfriend so I decided to practice social graces and make friends with her and in two weeks we were living together and were married within 4 months. Love at first sight was a concept that I always had treated with scorn. To my astonishment I found that she actually liked sex, I had always assumed that it was distasteful for women but I found that I was very reluctant to show excessive interested in sex and because my values from that vile religion of the worship of the single God who was in fact 3 a father, a son and a ghost with holes in it that raped a virgin to give rise to the son meant I considered any interest in sex to be excessive, I now recognize that my dysfunctional beliefs made me cruel to my wife.
There are several different causes of psychological dysfunction, some people have broken brains and nothing much can be done for them. Some people have an imbalance in the sets of chemicals that run the brain and for some of them the correct set of psychiatric drugs can help but some people have toxic ideas in their unconscious mind with which society or dysfunctional families or bad experiences have programmed into them. For some of these cognitive therapy can work if it is available. If psychologists are unavailable for literate people a book by a good psychologist can work. I recommend A New Guide To Rational Living by Albert Ellis.
It is possible to learn to access crazy ideas from the unconscious and the skill advances with practice. I consider the unconscious as like a turbid pot of simmering soup. With the soup you can see a muted orange which means that with a strainer you can fish out a carrot. With the unconscious one can get a feeling that an important idea is almost in reach a series of probings of the unconscious with questions as to “is it like this” or “is it like that” be may haul it closer to the surface. Writing posts on blogs, letters to newspapers or a diary can all help.
I consider that two groups of people need pshiciatric or cognitive therapy: –
1/ Government agents who have authoritarian power;
2/ All members of the criminal underclass.
Racism is not the same as EVIL. If people have racist ideas in their unconscious and these are shown to them they may get less racist. If members of the criminal underclass become aware of the unconscious beliefs that make them angry or react negatively to the presence of police or act out or commit crime they may do it less. Enviromental pollution can also cause violence and crime. One reason for the decrease in blue collar crime over 4 decades is the removal of lead from petrol. Lead from car fumes in dense inner city areas damaged brains impairing thinking and impulse control. Poor thinking and impulse control lead to poor decisions. Psychiatric or cognitive therapy for police and the underclass rather than prison may work better.
After reading your comments. I will focus on this. “One cannot explain the deaths of so many Black people in the US if I does not admit that White anti-Black racism exists”. Ok I assume you are talking about I and other Blacks being killed by police. From 2017 thru 2020 less than 1000 of us were killed by police nationwide. We killed far more of each other EVERY year than the cops did in all 4 of those years. There are 44 million of us here what percentage of 44 million is 1000 ?? There are easily more than one million times a year one of us deals with a cop. Almost All of us know someone that has been stopped by police, but almost none of us personally know Anyone that has been beaten, shot, killed, or mistreated by the police. Do the math. Don’t believe people who don’t care about Black lives unless they can be exploited for political gain or financial enrichment.
You noted that 100 blacks were killed by police in 4 years. How many of those blacks were killed by WHITE police ?
Or are we presuming that all police – black white or hispanic are racist ?
I have no doubt that racism exists in policing. I know many police officers – they – like all people beleif many stupid things – some of them may beleive stupid things about race.
But what is the impact of that on policing ?
What is the goal today ?
BLM has just succeeded in putting its symbolic white racist police trophy up on the wall.
Where do we go forward from here ?
I have ZERO problems with communities deciding what their own policing should be.
So what is it that poor minoritiy communities in this country want ?
Do they want safe streets ? Do they want lower crime, less violence ?
And how do we get those ?
Is it possible to have both less agressive policing an lower violent crime in these communities ?
And WHY are these NATIONAL issues ?
I do not live in Baltimore, Minneapolis, Chicago.
Most of the crime in the US takes place within small portions of the population.
It is not those of us who live in well policed low crime neighborhoods that should have a voice in the crime problem in those few places in the country where that problem looms large.
It is not the business of the federal government, or even the state, and often not even the city, but the local communities.
Neither Biden, nor Trump can fix communities where crime is high.
I have lots of ideas about how to fix problems in these communities – but it is NOT my right to impose those ideas on those communities by force.
If these communities want less policing – that is their choice. If they want more black police officers – that is their choice.
To the extent there is a larger voice in these issues, it is that we should be getting rid of laws that intentionally or otherwise harm minorities and harm those in poor and crime ridden communities.
Zoning laws, employment licensing laws, minimum wage laws, all the myriads of laws that deprive people with less resources of opportunities.
This is the vast majority of the “regulatory state”
Your screed is not only incredibly verbose, but stupid and wrong in every conceivable way. You know absolutely nothing. Here is a simple fact that you should dwell on. More than 90% of Black homicides are committed by Blacks. If you want to understand why this is so, which is highly doubtful in your case, here is a video to set you straight:
Carl: “One cannot explain the deaths of so many Black people in the US if [one] does not admit that White anti-Black racism exists….”
I can. Most murdered black people have been killed by young black men. More than 54% of ALL murders in the country are committed by black men who constitute only about 7% of the total population.
Anti-white [and anti-Asian and anti-Hispanic] racism by blacks is a bigger problem than anti-black racism in this country and it is getting much worse.
Racism is not rare – it is quite common. We all have preferences, typically decreasing in strength with distance.
Family, clan, tribe, friends, state, nation, race, creed. We all prefer those we share more in common with – even when what we share is immutable and often meaningless.
Not only do we have these preferences, but their strength varies.
In the past we were willing to enslave those of a different race or nation or creed.
Today the strength of racial preferences in the US is LESS of a factor that myriads of other things inside our control.
getting a job
Not committing a crime
Not having children out of wedlock
Not forming a family until you are able to
Each alone have a greater impact on your future in the US than your race.
In fact if you are white and you fail at any or all of these your future will be as dim as if you are black or hispanic.
Are there exceptions ? Certainly. There are people in this country who remain deeply racist – but they are rare.
Racism is not rare – but consequential racism is.
The whole problem is that you combine all black deaths, even those that were proven justified. Those that completely change once the truth came out. Taking all of those out that don’t belong, the number is so small you have no case for what you say.
George Floyd should be alive and in jail.
Absent medical intervention long before parmedics arrived, Floyd was dead when he took way too much fentanyl.
There is a legitimate claim that once Floyd was arrested the government because responsible for his heatlh.
There was with near certainty some positive duty to thwart the drug overdose – given the availability of Narcan.
But that is not murder. Nor is it Chauvin’s specific duty.
The internet is a big place, and no small defence team can be expected to have searched all of it for each potential juror. In the case you cite the juror openly stated her party allegiance.
the black juror wearing hte BLM tshirt lied in voir dire and he screwed Chauvin.
Chauvin WILL either get a new trial or win on appeal
BET ON IT
Did you read the article or just the headline? The same exact thing happened in Roger Stone’s trial. The Judge ignored the juror’s lies and told Stone to pound sand.
Why shall it be different for Chauvin?
Further why did not Chauvin himself and/or his legal team uncover Mitchell’s lies pre-trial?
Constance– It sounds like you are okay with jurors lying to get on some trials.
That’s the point being neglected. Chauvin’s defense lawyers not being thorough enough with jury vetting is their problem, not the court’s. Any discovery after the fact still does not negate the facts presented at the trial.
The accepted practice is to gather a juror’s statements under the assumption that an honest citizen will be truthful if he is fit to be a juror. That is the core practice and it existed long before the internet. Is it malpractice in your mind for a lawyer to accept the word of a black man without investigating him? That seems to be your position.
Svelaz does not understand that in voir dire the judge controls the questioning not the lawyers.
Also there is a pressure not to strike black jurors for fear of a Batson challenge
It makes many of these situations very hard for white defendants to get a fair shake
Personally I am of the view that courts should extremely narrow voir dire.
That prosecutors and defense should be forced to accept 12 randomly selected jurors that are not mentally incompent or directly conflicted.
Who in their right mind would want a jury that is made of people who know nothing about anything.
But that is not the system we have. And in the current system it is the duty of the state to assure an impartial jury
“That’s the point being neglected. Chauvin’s defense lawyers not being thorough enough with jury vetting is their problem, not the court’s. Any discovery after the fact still does not negate the facts presented at the trial.”
False. The constitutional requirement for a fair trial is a duty of the STATE. Not the defendant.
While the law as it currently exists – which is in error, often places that burden wrongfully on the defense attorney, the courts still reverse convictions and grant mistrails when the defense attorney errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
So no matter how you slice it this is coming back to bite you in the ass.
This some issue arrose with the Stone trial. Judge Jackson was arguably close to right (according to the law in placing the blame on Stone’s attorney’s. But that only kicked the can down the road. It is highly likely that Stone would have been granted a new trial eventually – had Trump not fully pardoned him. At worst, new attorney’s would have claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. an appeals court would agree, and Stone would have gotten a new trial – several years from now.
You are looking at the same thing now.
The Chauvin trial was political theater. I can not predict the future. I do not think Chauvin’s short term prospects are good.
The entire legal system remains terrified that BLM will burn the country down – with Maxine Waters leading the charge, and Joe Biden quietly egging them on.
But the time will come when the courts will not feel presured and it is likely they will reverse then.
Defense attorney’s do not have infinite resources – the state does.
The burden of providing a fair trial constitutionally rests on the state – not the defense.
The fact that there was overwhelming evidence would not, or ever prove to a Trump supporter that the cop would do any harm. Whether it be a cop or con-man president there is no way they would see evidence and facts as factors in any kind of wrongdoing. What would they say if a white jury member wore and was seen wearing a MAGA hat or shirt? And the cop was found not guilty.
Fish, this has nothing to do with anyone’s political affiliation. Why do you Lefty’s always reduce any conversation to who someone supports politically? This is about how our judicial system works. Where party affiliation means nothing.
It also is NOT about guilt or innocence. It is about giving someone a constitutionally protected fair trial.
And if the juror committed perjury in order to get on the jury than Chauvin did not get a fair trial.
AND I THINK HE IS GUILTY AS CHARGED!
But that’s not the subject .matter athand.
Paul, he did get a fair trial. One cannot prove that a juror lied simply because he stated an opinion long after the trial is over. It was the responsibility of Chauvin’s lawyers to fully vet each juror. If they didn’t do so it is not reason to seek a new trial.
The juror participated in events that asserted Chauvin’s guilt BEFORE sitting as a juror.
Get you timeline correct.
You are having a lot of Biden moments
John to Svelaz:: “You are having a lot of Biden moments”.
I noticed that, too. I am not sure this Svelaz is the same as the old Svelaz.
“The fact that there was overwhelming evidence would not, or ever prove to a Trump supporter that the cop would do any harm.”
Not a Trump supporter. I have never once voted for him. Nor is this about Trump. It is about a specific instance in Mineapolis involving George Floyd and Dereck Chauvin. It is not about police generally. it is not iconic.
There is one relevant question – did Chauvin murder Floyd.
And the only answer is NO.
Is all police conduct justifiable ? Of course not. The officers that pummeled Rodney King acted criminally.
There are other specific incidents were the actions of the police were varying degrees of wrong.
“Whether it be a cop or con-man president there is no way they would see evidence and facts as factors in any kind of wrongdoing.”
Maybe the problem is your inability to present FACTS.
I have asked you and others on the left repeatedly for examples of actual misconduct.
I can provide several examples of police misconduct of varying degrees – actual murder by police is quite rare though.
I am not the one who looks at many different things and always sees the same thing.
“What would they say if a white jury member wore and was seen wearing a MAGA hat or shirt? And the cop was found not guilty.”
Nothing. A MAGA hat is not a statement about the police officers guilt or innocence.
It is a purely political opinion it is NOT specific to a specific criminal allegation.
While attending a George Floyd rally is unarguably a statement about George Floyd’s death.
You are making the false equivalence that a general political symbol reflects the same bias as specific acts that reflect a specific position on Chauvin’s guilt.
In fact even if person wore a “Chauvin is innocent” T-Shirt that would not inherently constitute cause to remove them from a jury.
The legal presumption is INNOCENCE. Not guilt. You are EXPECTED to start a trial assuming that the defendent is innocent until proven guilty – not the other way around.
John Say, “There is one relevant question – did Chauvin murder Floyd.
And the only answer is NO.”
According to the law, he did.
In Minnesota third-degree murder requires prosecutors to prove that someone caused the death of another “by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.,
Chauvin clearly showed disregard for human life. This is why his indifference to Taylor’s pleas were relevant.
Another Minnesota officer was charged with murder not long ago with third degree murder. ” in 2019, former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor was convicted of third-degree murder in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond after she called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in progress in the alley near her house. Noor fatally shot Damond from the passenger seat of a squad car, firing across his partner, who had been driving”
““What would they say if a white jury member wore and was seen wearing a MAGA hat or shirt? And the cop was found not guilty.”
Nothing. A MAGA hat is not a statement about the police officers guilt or innocence.
It is a purely political opinion it is NOT specific to a specific criminal allegation.”
Then a juror wearing a BLM shirt is not sign of bias either according to you. A BLM shirt is not a statement about a police officer’s guilt or innocence as well.
“In fact even if person wore a “Chauvin is innocent” T-Shirt that would not inherently constitute cause to remove them from a jury.”
False. The key phrase, “would not inherently constitute cause to remove them from a jury” is quite a stretch. No lawyer would accept a person wearing a such a shirt as an objective juror.
“The legal presumption is INNOCENCE. Not guilt. You are EXPECTED to start a trial assuming that the defendent is innocent until proven guilty – not the other way around.”
Chauvin was ultimately proven guilty by a jury.
” “There is one relevant question – did Chauvin murder Floyd.
And the only answer is NO.”
According to the law, he did.”
Nope. the prosecution claimed Floyd was suffocated.
He was not.
“In Minnesota third-degree murder requires prosecutors to prove that someone caused the death of another “by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.,”
Read ALL the words – like “caused death” – Floyd did NOT die of suffocation.
You keep ignoring this.
Chauvin did not give him the Fentanyl – Hall did.
“Chauvin clearly showed disregard for human life. This is why his indifference to Taylor’s pleas were relevant.”
Again completely irrelevant unless Floyd died of suffocation.
I would further note that AGAIN as west testified to by PROSECUTION witnesses on cross – People who are being arrested CONSTANTLY plead. “I can’t breath” is a common plea – medical pleas are very common. Floyd was pleading that “I can’t breath BEFORE he was arrested.
If you say Chauvin was being indifferent – at what point did Floyd pleas go from ridiculous to meaningful ?
If you say the police must ALWAYS take the pleas of those they arrest seriously – you should not be surprised if in very short order – everyone arrested makes medical pleas.
This is a frequent problem for those on the left. Biden and the left spent 4 years ranting about the border and about increasing immigration and about unaccompanied minors and families and … and low and behold the moment they gain power – masses of illegal immigrants rush the border – unaccompanied minors at rates never seen before, Families, …..
You do not seem to understand that when you telegraph to people how to get favorable treatment – they LISTEN, and they will LIE, and it is often impossible to tell the lies from the truth.
So are you going to call paramedics everytime anyone is arressted ? Are you going to release every out of control arrestee the moment they say “I can’t breath” ?
How do you know chauvin was indifferent to human life. Maybe he was just jaded by the myriads of people who “claimed to be unable to breath before – of the fact that Floyd said he could not breath for 10 minutes BEFORE being arrested.
Do the police have portable lie detectors ?
“Another Minnesota officer was charged with murder not long ago with third degree murder. ” in 2019, former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor was convicted of third-degree murder in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond after she called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in progress in the alley near her house. Noor fatally shot Damond from the passenger seat of a squad car, firing across his partner, who had been driving””
So ? I have no idea the complete facts of the case – and likely you do not either. Maybe it was murder, maybe not.
I would note in the Noor case the office did shot someone who was NOT a criminal.
Further the officer SHOT someone – they used deadly force – just as was used against Alishi Babbit – when NOT protecting their life or that of another.
Floyd died of a heart attack caused by a drug overdose.
“Then a juror wearing a BLM shirt is not sign of bias either according to you.”
This juror was wearing a shirt that said get your Knee off my Neck, and was at a George Floyd Rally – BOTH are specific references to THIS case, and BOTH are assertions that Chauvin was GUILTY.
“A BLM shirt is not a statement about a police officer’s guilt or innocence as well.”
Correct – but that is NOT the facts specific to this juror. I do not care that he went to BLM rallies.
I care that he participated in George Floyd specific events and wore a T-Shirt that presumes Floyd was murdered.
““In fact even if person wore a “Chauvin is innocent” T-Shirt that would not inherently constitute cause to remove them from a jury.”
False. The key phrase, “would not inherently constitute cause to remove them from a jury” is quite a stretch. No lawyer would accept a person wearing a such a shirt as an objective juror.”
No PROSECUTOR would. Regardless, the standard is not “objective” – that is the prosecutors standard. The standard is capable of giving the defendant reasonable doubt.
Juries are inherently required to err on the side of the defendant.
That may not happen in the real world – but it is the constitutional and moral requirement.
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
William Blackstone – that would be from the pre-eminent Blackstone’s commentaries on law that are the foundations of western law.
“Chauvin was ultimately proven guilty by a jury.:”
No he was convicted. Not at all the same thing. Innocent people are convicted all the time.
The LOW estimate is that our prisons have about 2.5% of their population as people who are ACTUALLY innocent.
My wife is a public defender, and has TWO people on the innocence projects “exhonerated” list – this is people who were convicted and later PROVEN to be innocent.
A conviction sends you to jail. It does not PROVE anything.
Facts and evidence PROVE things and Juries frequently get things wrong.
If we look at the prison population and change from “actual innocence” – to just, not guilty of the crime they were convicted of – it is likely we are well into double digits.
Our legal system is very poor at determining guilt and innocence accurately.
What saves it most of the time is that as bad as it is, to a large extent the people facing our legal system are guilty of Something.
I have been pulled over by police many times in my life. I am not a big fan of the police. I can only think of a few instances in which I was actually doing what the officer accused me of. But the vast majority of the time – I was breaking the law.
While this was traffic offenses, it is no different for felonies and misdemeanors.
As I said – I am not a big fan of police. I have experience officers talling bald faced lies repeatedly first hand,
I am not interested in the debate over whether Chauvin is a good person. That is not relevant and I do not know the answer.
Nor are we debating whether he should have been fired or charged with some lessor offense. There was no trial for a lessor offense.
I have no evidence to weigh.
What I do know from THIS trial is that Chauvin did not murder Floyd.
That is all. That is what is relevant.
His alleged indifference – is only meaningful if he did kill Floyd.
He did not – as such evidence of indifference is irrelevant.
You have demonstrated complete indifference to Ashli Babbits life – are you guilty of her murder ?
No, because you did not kill her.
Indifference – alleged or proven is not a crime. It is an element of SOME crimes.
Alone it is meaningless. 3
Trump is a scum bag and a con man. The fact that you deny the same for Biden means you describe yourself above.
Darren Smith HELP.
Is there an easier way to get in touch with you than putting your name in a random comment?
Do you as moderator have access to my email address? If you do you can contact me by that. For the other way do you have an email address by which commentors can contact you?
I have lost a comment in one of the filters but am no longer sure which post it was a comment for.
I don’t think that Darren has a public email, but JT does — https://www.law.gwu.edu/jonathan-turley — and I’ve used that to communicate about comments here. My guess is that Darren will see an email from you if you send it to the address listed there, just say something like “please forward to Darren” in the subject line.
I am sorry but I cannot restore the comment you wrote. In the comment you made several permutations of a word that the owner of this website instantiated as being prohibited. You knowledge of this is shown by making permutations of the proscribed word by modifying it several ways, with the exception of one that was left intact and caused the software to flag it out. It is not just a string of characters that the host of the website sought to prohibit, it is the meaning conveyed that he wishes to curtail. It would be against the spirit of his directive to allow a workaround permutation of that which he has disallowed.
That word is necessary as a way of connecting to the malign stereotypes that a significant proportion of whites, maybe a majority have of Blacks.
The things that happen to Blacks at the hands of police and vigilantes like George Zimmerman happen because in situations of perceived urgency or stress these stereotypes in the unconscious connect directly with the muscles.
If one bans a word connected to the perjoritive stereotypes and substitutes another word such as “The N-word” the perjoritive stereotypes migrate slowly to the new word that eventually becomes equally toxic and end up in University teachers being persecuted for any discussion of racism that uses even sanitized versions of historical texts. The stereotypes exist as long as the dominance relationship between the classes who consider themselves respectable and the members of the despised underclass exist.
I doubt that JT ever examines the comment stream such as this one (I imagine he does not have the time). If he did he should be horrified. Once upon a time the commentators on JT’s blog were fairly balanced and civil but that was 20 years ago. Now the commentariat has moved far far to the right. My use of WMD level sarcasm is milder than the average. There are only Natasha and Fishwings left to balance the right wing sludge. Even commentators whom I years ago considered balanced have moved far rightward.
On a second matter, is there an email address or a permanent thread like the departed corrections thread that one can use to contact the blog maintainer that I believe is you. Shouting out your name in a random post is very inelegant. If there is not already such a facility I suggest one be instituted.
I agree my particular post laid on the industrial strength sarcasm too heavily. One I made to RAW STORY in a similar vein got me banned from that forum. I will be more careful in future.
I agree with what you discussed in the first three paragraphs about the circumnavigating course of some words from being labeled preferable and then inevitably becoming pariah. But it seems that in our host’s views, if I may conjecture and speak of him, the “here and now” of the words’ or ideas’ maligned natures might have contributed to their removal. Yet whether I agree with it or not matters not since it is his weblog and his house rules are of his personal purview. What some others here fail to understand is that Professor Turley’s personal website is more akin to a “closely held” entity than it would be for a general utility or perhaps a large corporation. As such, I would propose in terms of what he chooses to remove from his comment section or his own articles afford him a greater degree of liberty to do so. It is more like his household of where he resides than the public park a few miles away. For example generally in Trespass Law a person has an absolute right to evict an unwanted guest from their residence, with or without cause, for any reason he or she deems proper. When the police were called for a person refusing to leave, if the trespasser was not an immediate family member or for example rented a room there, the reason for the eviction is irrelevant. Once the homeowner said he wanted them to leave that was all the police needed to hear…and its either they leave immediately or they go to jail. So back to the closely held notion, if someone attends a gathering at Professor Turley’s house and starts acting in a manner the host objects to; out he goes…and that’s the end of it. But they are more than welcome to walk to the city park and spout their words off in a manner they see fitting. That is how it works with his website and using another website that allows other forms of speech they prefer to utilize.
As you wrote in the second matter. It generally is better, though less elegant as you mentioned, to just make the request in the form of a comment if you wish to message someone here. It might seem unintuitive but it is actually faster. Creating a dedicated e-mail address would work better elsewhere but in this case with the mechanics of our workflow it might at best not make much difference time wise and worse it could result in ping-ponging between those who would have to monitor the e-Mail address concurrently. The website in the past used the Corrections page’s comments section but that has been turned off. It was rather cumbersome to have to continually monitor it.
Thank you for the suggestions. I will share your ideas with Professor Turley next time I speak with him.
Darren, this is certainly an interesting point of view. I do find it ironic that the professor criticizes other platforms for doing what you just explained, the only difference seems to be the size of the “house”. Facebook and twitter are just bigger “homes” of someone else. Still a very interesting insight.
“[I]f someone attends a gathering at Professor Turley’s house and starts acting in a manner the host objects to; out he goes…and that’s the end of it.”
Trial conducted in a city held hostage by rioters. (No change of venue.)
Jurors not sequestered.
Proceedings tainted by public announcement of civil settlement.
Politicians and community activists openly call for guilty verdict — or else.
Anyone with two eyes can see what that “or else” means.
A dishonest juror obviously biased who used the verdict to “make a statement.”
Grotesquely irresponsible media pundits who used Chauvin as a poster child for “systemic racism.”
Collectivist commentators itching to steal an individual’s liberty to fix social “ills.”
Whatever the facts of the case, that was *not* the process of objective law. That was mob rule.
Understand what “Systemic racism” really means
It means “all white people are guilty even if they are not
“systemic racism” is a notion that if taken seriously by the government, will mean genocide of white people, or if we fight back, at the very least, race war.
I know some will find this assertion extreme,. why, then?
because if it is systemic, then we all bear responsibility. and it can only be changed by destroying “We” that is white people
white people need to wake up, and quit tolerating this “systemic racism” lie.
anywhere it is stated it must be opposed.
and not just in ideas. the people who advance it, as a notion, must be personally attacked
this ultimately will be a war for survival
If we are not going to allow the left to mutilate the meaning for words for political purposes – we can not do the same ourselves.
Do atleast some on the left intend what you are arguing – likely. Further even if those numbers are small, that outcome is possible just because of the control of the narrative excercised by the left as well as their totalitarian nature.
I do not beleive that the vast majority of people understand where the left is leading us. I do not even beleive the majority of the left understand the possible outcome of their own positions. These people are engaged in utopian thinking.
They are increasingly little separated from those who brought Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, and Chavez for power.
Left utopianism leads to bloody tyranny.
I doubt the majority of germans supported the extermination of the jews. They merely turned a blind eye or tepid support to their demonization. The rest was carried out quietly by the extremes.
In the USSR while bourgeois were the first victims, quite quickly – communists ate their own. We already see signs of the same thing today.
Sure Ben Shapiro and Ticker Carlson draw the ire of the left, but as much vitriole is directed at left wing nut professors with heterodx views, Or JR Rowling, or Martina Navratilova,
Come the “revolution” Trump may be lined up at the wall first, but it is already clear that the left is fully prepared to kill off its own heretics shortly their after.
There is no doubt that real Jim Crow was “systemic racism”. But this country today does not have systemic racism.
There are still racists – of every color. If you are asian you are twice as likely to be the victim of black violence than white violence.
There ware certainly still problems.
At the same time if we do not recognize that we live in the least racist moment in time, in the least racist country in the world, we quite litterally risk creating the very racism we are decrying.
Will we see the rise and triumph of anti-white racism ? Maybe, but we are equally likely to recreate racism against non-white and particularly black minorities. We are not there. We may even be a long way away. But we are headed towards – not away from more racism, not less.
We have rapidly rising violence in inner cities – and little hope of that declining anytime soon. The fear of white suburban and rural america that urban violence will move to their neighborhoods will grow with the violence. And the more it grows the more the view that the root cause is race will grow on both sides.
The left is quite good at creating the problems that they claim they are trying to solve.
Amen & Awomen.
Nor was it an example of blind justice
And this is a major problem we are facing today.
The left is quite literally arguing – and ENFORCING the concept that what constitutes right and wrong, what constitutes crime is different depending on the race of the victim and the race of the alleged purpetrator.
Alishi Babbit was clearly murdered – George Floyd was not.
Those on the left here constantly want to make Alishi responsible for her own death at the hands of police.
There is no doubt that a gun shot fired by a police officer that struck Babbit in the neck killed her.
There is no doubt that Babbit posed not threat of death of serious bodily injury to anyone immediately prior to being shot.
Yet the left wants to claim that Alishi bears the responsibility for her own death.
How exactly is protesting and petitioning government in a public building something that makes you complicit in your own death ?
And in what world is it that taking 3-10x the fatal dose of Fentanyl is NOT being complicit in your own death ?
Massive double standards on the part of the left.
That would be bad enough – but these double standards have now been imposed by force through government.
That is the rule of man, not law. That is lawless and that will end very badly.
John Say, “Alishi Babbit was clearly murdered – George Floyd was not.”
False. There is distinction that is uncomfortable for those that claim she was murdered.
“Those on the left here constantly want to make Alishi responsible for her own death at the hands of police.”
She WAS responsible for her own death. She was TRESPASSING on government property illegally. She was already committing a crime. She was trying to get INTO an area where the public was NOT allowed. Multiple people were forcing their way into the chamber where legislators were still in. Officers were authorized to use deadly force to protect the legislators. Babbit was engaging in a criminal act. Just like any officer shooting a suspect who presents a threat he was clearly justified in shooting Babbit. She was not just an innocent bystander. She was actively committing a crime. There is no double standard here.
Svelaz are you ok with shooting trespassers? Can I shoot a trespasser lawfully? No, I can’t. Not unless in fear of my life. The cop who murdered her had no fear of his life. Middle aged unarmed woman trying to squeeze through a little hole behind a secure barricade. And you’ll notice the other cop didn’t shoot did he.
Now let’s rewind to last year and see how Svelaz and his friends spazzed out because a bunch of trespassers got guns merely waved at them. None of them shot.
Double standard much?
“John Say, “Alishi Babbit was clearly murdered – George Floyd was not.”
False. There is distinction that is uncomfortable for those that claim she was murdered.”
There is ? Then you would be able to cite it.
The applicable federal law on the use of deadly force by a federal officer requires that to use deadly force against someone they must be an IMMEDIATE threat of DEATH or serious bodily injury to yourself or others.
There is no exception for killing someone in the midst of a crime – unless that crime is murder or agrevated assault.
Babbit was not arrmed.
She was no serious threat to the officer or anyone else.
I would note that Babbit was not under arrest, It does not appeat that she was warned, and it is near certain she heard no warning.
Further the officer shot her in a way that was a risk to other people – including other officers.
There were police on the other side of the door immediately bedside her – and they did nothing to stop her, in fact they got out of the way of those trying to get into the speakers lobby as soon as it was cleared.
“She WAS responsible for her own death. She was TRESPASSING on government property illegally.”
It is public property not “government property – further it WAS or should have been open to the public.
It was not posted no tresspassing. She was not warned not to tresspass.
Please look up the law on Tresspass – because you are fully of Schiff.
Further, if she had been tresspassing and given notice – the officer STILL would not have been permitted to use deadly force.
“She was already committing a crime.”
You already lost that argument – but lest assume for the sake of argument that she was.
Are the police allowed to shoot Tresspassors ? When is the last time you heard of that happening ?
Can they shoot people for dealing drugs ? Parking in a no parking zone.
Tresspass is typically a summary or misdemeanor offence.
There are specific requirements for Felony tresspass and those were not even close to met.
And even if Alishi was committing Felony Tresspass – that is not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.
“She was trying to get INTO an area where the public was NOT allowed.”
I did not see a no trasspassing sign – did you ? Where ?
Further we have been through this before. It has not been established that Alishi was climbing through the broken window.
And AGAIN – even if she had been – the LAW does not provide that is a justification for the use of deadly force.
“Multiple people were forcing their way into the chamber where legislators were still in.”
False, the legislators had left the speakers lobby. Watch the videos. You can see the last people in the lobby leave out the back and close the door. AFTER that the officers in front of the door where the protestors were moved away from the door.
THEN Alishi is shot.
But lets say hypothetically that there were still representatives in the lobby.
The police are NOT authorize to use deadly force to prevent members of the house of representatives from having to face angry members of the public.
“Officers were authorized to use deadly force to protect the legislators.”
From IMMEDIATE threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Not from angry citizens protesting government.
“Babbit was engaging in a criminal act.”
Nope. She was not tresspassing, and even if she was that is a summary or misdemeanor,
But ever if she was committing a felony – she was trying to pick pocket one of the representatives – that is NOT a justification for the use of deadly force.
Deadly force by a federal agent requires an immediate threat of DEATH or serious bodily harm
Not an angry citizen protesting.
Even if Alishli had a Gun – unless she had been aiming it at a person – the shooting would not be justified.
” Just like any officer shooting a suspect who presents a threat he was clearly justified in shooting Babbit.”
Alishi did not present a threat.
Please actually read the law – you have been making up the law regarding Floyd and you keep making it up regarding Alishi.
“She was not just an innocent bystander.”
No, she was an angry citizen petitioning government and protesting a lawless election.
“She was actively committing a crime.”
“There is no double standard here.”
Of course there is.
Floyd was arrested for passing a counterfeit $20.
That is an actual crime. It is a serious crime. It is an actual felony.
Would the police have been justified in shooting Floyd had they done so while he was in the store passing the counterfeit $20 ?
Of course not.
While you have failed to demonstrate that Alishi was committing a crime – even if you succeeded – law enforcement – and in this case specifically federal law enforcement, may not use deadly force just because someone is committing a crime – even a felony.
There are very specific requirements to use deadly force. They are SLIGHTLY lower in most states for police than for ordinary people – but not much. The federal standard for the police is the same as for ordinary people – with a few exceptions such as crimes involving nuclear materials that are completely irrelevant here.
The use of deadly force is only allowed where there is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.
The only person that died at the capital was Alishi. Serious bodily injury is an assault that could kill someone.
You do not have that. In fact you did not have that anywhere at the capital – except the murder of Alishi.
Comments are closed.