Total Members Voted: 11
Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM
Unlike the adults in the room, the Kidster might not grasp that dozens of administrations (and congresses) have failed on gun control. Cowering before gun lobbies and pseudo-Constitutionalists is The American Way.
Quote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 09:52:36 PMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 05:28:40 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 05:00:56 PMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 12:38:29 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 12:33:08 PMChauvin'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-caseHe 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.
Quote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 05:28:40 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 05:00:56 PMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 12:38:29 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 12:33:08 PMChauvin'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-caseHe 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.
Quote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 05:00:56 PMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 12:38:29 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 12:33:08 PMChauvin'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-caseHe 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.
Quote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 12:38:29 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 12:33:08 PMChauvin'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-caseHe 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?
Quote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 12:33:08 PMChauvin'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-caseHe has as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind to be acquitted. The best he can hope for is a hung jury.
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
Quote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 10:12:48 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 09:52:36 PMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 05:28:40 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 05:00:56 PMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 12:38:29 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 12:33:08 PMChauvin'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-caseHe 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.Thanks for proving my point.
Quote from: barton on April 17, 2021, 09:43:55 AMUnlike the adults in the room, the Kidster might not grasp that dozens of administrations (and congresses) have failed on gun control. Cowering before gun lobbies and pseudo-Constitutionalists is The American Way. PseudoConstitutionLists?The right to own a gun in America existed long before the Constitution.
Quote from: UNO on April 17, 2021, 11:15:04 AMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 10:12:48 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 09:52:36 PMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 05:28:40 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 05:00:56 PMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 12:38:29 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 12:33:08 PMChauvin'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-caseHe 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.Thanks for proving my point.The only point you have is the one on top of your head.
Quote from: LarryBnDC on April 17, 2021, 11:36:05 AMQuote from: UNO on April 17, 2021, 11:15:04 AMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 10:12:48 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 09:52:36 PMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 05:28:40 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 05:00:56 PMQuote from: LarryBnDC on April 16, 2021, 12:38:29 PMQuote from: UNO on April 16, 2021, 12:33:08 PMChauvin'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-caseHe 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.Thanks for proving my point.The only point you have is the one on top of your head.Wow, Larry, quite the rejoinder. You just can't help but to keep underscoring your own idiocy. READ it again: "The piece wasn't about his defense. It was about the law, its application, and the ramifications of police policies."You may now GFY.
A sign of comparative sanity from Rep. Greene:https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/17/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-america-first-caucus/index.htmlI expect this is just a pause in her plans, not a true scrapping of them.
Poll
