Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[LarryBnDC]

The LEFT is fucking things up---which is what they do best:

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he didn’t think Tlaib’s comments were harmful, but that they weren’t the solution.

“I come out of a culture where people honor the police. But they want good policing,” he told CNN.

Clyburn days after the 2020 election had told CNN that the “defund the police” attacks had cost Democrats seats and could derail the Black Lives Matter movement.

He said he and the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) had discussed the matter prior to Lewis’s death and agreed that it “had the possibilities of doing to the Black Lives Matter movement and current movements across the country what 'Burn, baby, burn' did to us back in 1960.”



Good point, James. How did that work out? We got Nixon.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/548569-progressives-put-democrats-on-defense

One could say that was an indictment of a majority white voters.

MLK was that era's best hope for the USA and look where it got him with the majority.

Bullshit

Thank you

[LarryBnDC]

Chauvin's lawyer said, he acted in line with departmental policies, doing "exactly what he had been trained to do over his 19-year career." How could his use of force be excessive or deadly if it was precisely what the Minneapolis Police Department prescribed as a "[n]on-deadly force option"?

Against this the prosecution marshalled Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who said Chauvin's restraint "is not part of our training" and "in no way, shape, or form is anything that is by policy." A Minneapolis police lieutenant called it "totally unnecessary." A use-of-force expert from the Los Angeles Police Department deemed the hold excessive and a violation of Chauvin's responsibility as an officer. No "reasonable officer," said another expert, Seth Stoughton, "would have believed [what Chauvin did] was an appropriate, acceptable, or reasonable use of force."

 

I think Stoughton is absolutely right and the defense, by and large, is wrong. But there's one point on which the defense is on solid ground and the prosecution's case is shaky: Arradondo's claim that what Chauvin did isn't MPD policy. The department has since changed its rules, so it's not part of their training now, but last summer the MPD specifically permitted neck restraints applied via the officer's "leg."

This is what makes the jury's task legitimately difficult, despite how straightforward the video seemed. What Chauvin did was indefensible; in moral terms, I think "murder" is the right word. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right legal term given that departmental policy and the details of Minnesota law.

That policy means the use-of-force question is legitimately open in this legal sense, and the legal sense is where the jury's decision must be confined. Moral excess may not be legal excess, not because the moral excess isn't real and serious but because the legal reform we need is far bigger than any one man or death. Chauvin may be acquitted, but if he is, that acquittal is a guilty verdict for the police department policy that made it possible.

https://theweek.com/articles/977299/question-that-decide-chauvin-case

He has as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind to be acquitted.

The best he can hope for is a hung jury.

Why are you off topic?

That should have been his defense from the get go... but it wasn’t. What it is now is like the faucet of the kitchen sink defense.

[kidcarter8]

Zzzzzzz..

[Hamilton Samuels]

Chauvin's lawyer said, he acted in line with departmental policies, doing "exactly what he had been trained to do over his 19-year career." How could his use of force be excessive or deadly if it was precisely what the Minneapolis Police Department prescribed as a "[n]on-deadly force option"?

Against this the prosecution marshalled Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who said Chauvin's restraint "is not part of our training" and "in no way, shape, or form is anything that is by policy." A Minneapolis police lieutenant called it "totally unnecessary." A use-of-force expert from the Los Angeles Police Department deemed the hold excessive and a violation of Chauvin's responsibility as an officer. No "reasonable officer," said another expert, Seth Stoughton, "would have believed [what Chauvin did] was an appropriate, acceptable, or reasonable use of force."

 

I think Stoughton is absolutely right and the defense, by and large, is wrong. But there's one point on which the defense is on solid ground and the prosecution's case is shaky: Arradondo's claim that what Chauvin did isn't MPD policy. The department has since changed its rules, so it's not part of their training now, but last summer the MPD specifically permitted neck restraints applied via the officer's "leg."

This is what makes the jury's task legitimately difficult, despite how straightforward the video seemed. What Chauvin did was indefensible; in moral terms, I think "murder" is the right word. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right legal term given that departmental policy and the details of Minnesota law.

That policy means the use-of-force question is legitimately open in this legal sense, and the legal sense is where the jury's decision must be confined. Moral excess may not be legal excess, not because the moral excess isn't real and serious but because the legal reform we need is far bigger than any one man or death. Chauvin may be acquitted, but if he is, that acquittal is a guilty verdict for the police department policy that made it possible.

https://theweek.com/articles/977299/question-that-decide-chauvin-case

He has as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind to be acquitted.

The best he can hope for is a hung jury.

Why are you off topic?

That should have been his defense from the get go... but it wasn’t. What it is now is like the faucet of the kitchen sink defense.

I guess you don't read very well. The piece wasn't about his defense. It was about the law, its application, and the ramifications of police policies.

If you werent so prejudiced and biased, you might have read it as it was written.

[josh]

[LarryBnDC]

Chauvin's lawyer said, he acted in line with departmental policies, doing "exactly what he had been trained to do over his 19-year career." How could his use of force be excessive or deadly if it was precisely what the Minneapolis Police Department prescribed as a "[n]on-deadly force option"?

Against this the prosecution marshalled Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who said Chauvin's restraint "is not part of our training" and "in no way, shape, or form is anything that is by policy." A Minneapolis police lieutenant called it "totally unnecessary." A use-of-force expert from the Los Angeles Police Department deemed the hold excessive and a violation of Chauvin's responsibility as an officer. No "reasonable officer," said another expert, Seth Stoughton, "would have believed [what Chauvin did] was an appropriate, acceptable, or reasonable use of force."

 

I think Stoughton is absolutely right and the defense, by and large, is wrong. But there's one point on which the defense is on solid ground and the prosecution's case is shaky: Arradondo's claim that what Chauvin did isn't MPD policy. The department has since changed its rules, so it's not part of their training now, but last summer the MPD specifically permitted neck restraints applied via the officer's "leg."

This is what makes the jury's task legitimately difficult, despite how straightforward the video seemed. What Chauvin did was indefensible; in moral terms, I think "murder" is the right word. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right legal term given that departmental policy and the details of Minnesota law.

That policy means the use-of-force question is legitimately open in this legal sense, and the legal sense is where the jury's decision must be confined. Moral excess may not be legal excess, not because the moral excess isn't real and serious but because the legal reform we need is far bigger than any one man or death. Chauvin may be acquitted, but if he is, that acquittal is a guilty verdict for the police department policy that made it possible.

https://theweek.com/articles/977299/question-that-decide-chauvin-case

He has as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind to be acquitted.

The best he can hope for is a hung jury.

Why are you off topic?

That should have been his defense from the get go... but it wasn’t. What it is now is like the faucet of the kitchen sink defense.

I guess you don't read very well. The piece wasn't about his defense. It was about the law, its application, and the ramifications of police policies.

If you werent so prejudiced and biased, you might have read it as it was written.

You don’t understand what you posted.

[kidcarter8]

Still awaiting who will be first to blame the latest rash of killings on the former administration

[luee]

---‘Broken promise’: Biden’s backtrack on refugees still slammed by advocates
Democrats were up in arms over the White House’s refugee policy. The administration’s attempt to clarify hasn’t repaired all the damage.---

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/16/biden-backtracks-refugee-policy-482606

A rude awakening and a slap in the face from cold reality. Sorry Joe just no room.

[Hairy Lime]

Still awaiting who will be first to blame the latest rash of killings on the former administration

On the other hand, the wait to see who will be the first to be a smug mendacious little prick about it is over.

[josh]

Still awaiting who will be first to blame the latest rash of killings on the former administration

Still awaiting the first time you back up your commitments with actions to match them.

I posted about Biden's policies and actions or lack thereof multiple times, now, and you ducked it every time.

[kidcarter8]

I liked Joe's statement today re:  latest US shootings.

"Embarrassment" was the right word to use.

[kidcarter8]

BUY MORE HOUSES!

She also lashed out against people who raised money on behalf of Taylor's family without knowing her or her daughter.

"I could walk in a room full of people who claim to be here for Breonna’s family who don’t even know who I am, I’ve watched y’all raise money on behalf of Breonna’s family who has never done a damn thing for us nor have we needed it or asked so talk about fraud," Palmer said.


https://www.foxnews.com/us/breonna-taylors-mother-blm-louisville-fraud

[facilitatorn]

White devil is working extra hard to change subject from his pedo terrorist death cult, a.k.a the republican party. They must be coughing up more blood as they lose function in their extremities. No other explanation fits all the evidence nearly as well.

[josh]

[bodiddley]