Video emerges of Minneapolis police killing a citizen - - Riots

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by vienna

Hmm, really? We thought you read it for the centerfolds...




<O>

you are dating yourself there, although considering the average age around here, I am sure most get the pun.

p.s. - is anyone else tired of following the news? I find I am increasingly tuning out.

[Platapus]

PITTSBURGH — There was a sign of positivity at protests in East Liberty Sunday evening.
State Troopers spent the afternoon standing in a parking lot at the Target store in the area.



A protester named Alexander Cash brought a case of water to the Troopers, thanking them.


"I know you guys are out here doing your jobs. I'm not mad at you. I'm mad at the ones that are doing it to us, do you understand? We came out here peaceful, and that's what I'm trying to show ya'll," said Cash as he opened the case of water for them.

[Catfish]

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

The fact that you compare media like Vox to far-right hate media like "Breitbart" speaks volumes. Look at what you hear in witness reports, see in films, personal videos and what is now erupting all over the internet. Hard to deny.

To you it's never Right but FAR Right and never Media but HATE Media. Vox is every bit as hateful and biased as Breitbart but you just won't see it.

[mapuc]

Going a little off topic
I have by studying my friends throughout the years come to the conclusion

Which reliable news source a person trust...depends mostly on this persons
political standpoints.

An example
A very good friend of mine, who are more right wing than I'm, post only well mostly article from Breitbart, Gates of Vienna and other alt-right media.

If I post an article from CNN or from some other MSM as source I get the message from this friend...they can't be trusted they all lie to you.

The same goes for my dear friend who is far left(this person is a non-violent person, if you wonder)
This person only or mostly post article from left wing news paper from Denmark.

Which made me conclude.

Which news source a person see as reliable depends on their political standpoints.
(I could be wrong)

End of going a little off topic

Markus

[Commander Wallace]

Well, it's official.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is filing Additional charges against Derek Chauvin. Chauvin had been originally charged with 3rd degree murder and Manslaughter. An additional murder in the 2nd degree has now been filed against Chauvin in addition to the charges he already faces.

In addition, aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter charges have been filed against the other 3 officers involved in the murder of George Floyd. Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng, who helped restrain Floyd, and Tou Thao, who stood near the others, were not initially charged. Lane, 37, Kueng, 26, and Thao, 34, are now charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/ge...ges/index.html

In addition, It is expected that federal hate crime charges will also be filed against all 4 of these former officers. These boys could be facing the dealth penalty for their role in the murder of George Floyd. This is welcome news to everyone except the former officers themselves.

[mapuc]

^ this have made me wonder.

Right now we are witness to riot in many cities in USA.

What would happen if the verdict they get are...let say less than a couple of years.

Will we see more riot in the Street ?

Markus

[mapuc]

Keep on forgetting this important question

Can the President of USA order the military to take action on American soil ?
(sounds wrong, I hope you understand my question anyway)

Some of the news here in Denmark and Sweden say he can't he hasn't the right to do so.

Markus

[Platapus]

Yes he can. The applicable statutes are 10 U.S.C sections 252 and 253.



252

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

253

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it— (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

The insurrection act, which this US Code is based on, is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.



The applicable text of the Posse Commitus Act (18 USC section 1385) is

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

The insurrection act is an Act of Congress and therefore is exempt from the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.



Does this answer your question?

[Skybird]

I know I know it iss considered to be politically incorrect to tell jokes on blondes, but this stupid hollow-headed girlie is blonde and babbles so much empty trash that she fulfills every, really every cliché about blondes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us...urchill-in-ww2


America now offers the UK an apology for that infame comparison. All what Churchill was as statesman and as private man and artist - Trump is none of that.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by mapuc

^ this have made me wonder.

Right now we are witness to riot in many cities in USA.

What would happen if the verdict they get are...let say less than a couple of years.

Will we see more riot in the Street ?

Markus

That's a good possibility, Markus. Still, With strong video evidence such as this, it's not likely. The Attorney General took their time in making sure they could make the case stick in court. With the world wide publicity, the 4 former officers would have to have their case heard on another planet for this incident not to be known by a jury of their peers.

I'm sure the defendants will try to plea bargain but with as strong as the evidence is against them, I would be surprised if prosecutors would be interested in plea bargaining anything unless it's taking a potential death penalty off the table in exchange for a guilty plea.

Chauvin is 46 so it's unlikely he will ever see the outside again if convicted of all the charges against him. The other 3 are also looking at a lot of years behind bars if convicted. The other 3 officers face the same sentences as Chauvin, if convicted since they are viewed as equal participants in the murder of George Floyd.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

That's a good possibility, Markus. Still, With strong video evidence such as this, it's not likely. The Attorney General took their time in making sure they could make the case stick in court. With the world wide publicity, the 4 former officers would have to have their case heard on another planet for this incident not to be known by a jury of their peers.

I'm sure the defendants will try to plea bargain but with as strong as the evidence is against them, I would be surprised if prosecutors would be interested in plea bargaining anything unless it's taking a potential death penalty off the table in exchange for a guilty plea.

Chauvin is 46 so it's unlikely he will ever see the outside again if convicted of all the charges against him. The other 3 are also looking at a lot of years behind bars if convicted.

Whats your assessment - will it become a formally fair trial, or a slaughtering of potlical pawns to satisfy the crowd? The case against Chauvin's role is apparently beyond doubt, but the others - will they get fair punishemnt for their role in it, or will they be sacrificed by excessive verdicts to get the road silent again?

I honestly don'T know and do not dare to assess this from my side, so I am just asking.

[Skybird]

The attempt by Trump to politicise the military can easily become one of the many serious damages that will outlast his time in office by long years to come after him.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...h-trump-297820

The military must resist to make the same mistake the Wehrmacht made regarding Hitler. It shall not, under no circumstances, allow to get abused for personal interests of the leader.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-trump/596665/


This ^Admiral Mattis said recently: "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us." (...)"We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children."

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Whats your assessment - will it become a formally fair trial, or a slaughtering of potlical pawns to satisfy the crowd? The case against Chauvin's role is apparently beyond doubt, but the others - will they get fair punishemnt for their role in it, or will they be sacrificed by excessive verdicts to get the road silent again?

I honestly don'T know and do not dare to assess this from my side, so I am just asking.

My assessment is very simple. The U.S, which is where I reside, has long proclaimed itself as the individual defenders of peoples rights, worldwide. The U.S has long complained about human rights in China and Iran, just to name a few countries.

The tables have turned and the U.S record regarding police brutality against everyone but particularly African Americans has been laid bare for scrutiny and scorn, worldwide. The militarization of local police forces has also been called into question. This didn't just happen with the murder of George Floyd. Others have lost their lives over frivolous matters in dealing with law enforcement officers. This is why you see Police officers joining protests as well. This incident and murder makes all decent and honorable law enforcement officers look bad. It also places them at risk for lethal retaliation and they are aware of that. There have been incidents of attacks on police officers in the last week.

These 4 former Minneapolis officers are hardly political pawns, as you describe them. They are nothing more than murders and should be treated and regarded as such. They are being held accountable to the same standard with which they used with other defendants who allegedly, let me repeat that, allegedly committed a crime. Our legal system holds that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It's a standard they denied George Floyd when they murdered him in cold blood. The 4 officers involved in this incident on the other hand, will have their day in court.

To save face, The U.S will have to throw the full weight of the law including the Federal Government against these former officers to demonstrate to the world that they don't tolerate this sort of behavior, even though they do. I fully expect Federal Hate crime charges to be filed in the coming days or weeks against these officers in addition to what has been filed at the state level. This murder has given the U.S a pretty good black eye on the world stage. I fully expect to see legislation enacted and bills written
to address these abuses on a number of levels. The Supreme Court should consider abolishing the Immunity that public officials like police officers have enjoyed to protect themselves from prosecution in engaging in crimes while hiding behind a badge.

For these former officers, they will have the unique opportunity to see the legal system from an entirely different perspective. If I were these officers, I would be scared. I'm sure they are in protective custody in jail but if they are convicted, they should be put into the general population and not protected. This would send a strong message to any law enforcement officers operating on the fringes of the law and serve as a strong deterrent.

Like everyone else in the U.S, It's been a numbing experience to have endured the last week. I have faith and confidence that the people in the U.S are good people and will have the will to try to make things right through concrete actions and legislation.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Whats your assessment - will it become a formally fair trial, or a slaughtering of potlical pawns to satisfy the crowd? The case against Chauvin's role is apparently beyond doubt, but the others - will they get fair punishemnt for their role in it, or will they be sacrificed by excessive verdicts to get the road silent again?

I honestly don'T know and do not dare to assess this from my side, so I am just asking.

If you can find the documentary 'Peace Officer' it's well worth the watch. Its not just blacks that are subject to the abuses of law enforcement. I really hope this trial opens the eyes of law enforcement AND politicians a little wider

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/peace-officer-2015

"Peace Officer" is a nearly great documentary about a national crisis, but its heart is a tragedy with a sickening ironic twist. The protagonist, retired law enforcement officer Williams "Dub" Lawrence, became the youngest sheriff ever elected in his hometown of Centerville, Utah, and started the city's first Special Weapons and Tactical unit, or SWAT team; thirty-three years later, that SWAT team would shoot his son-in-law to death after a domestic disturbance call.

Lawrence has spent the last six years investigating the incident and others like it. In the process, he has come to the conclusion that not only was his son-in-law's death preventable, it was inevitable considering the culture of SWAT teams and mentality of law enforcement bureaus that feel naked without them. The relationship between police and citizens has been severed. Law enforcement agencies invest in automatic weapons, rocket launchers, armored vehicles, grenades, tear gas and other signifiers of a military mentality that views civilians—the very people that police are sworn to protect—as The Enemy. "Peace Officer" is a simple, provocative and correct title for this movie. It's is about a particular peace officer, Lawrence, a soft-spoken man whose wide grin and affable manner mask deep reserves of melancholy and righteous anger. But it is also about the idea (outmoded these days, unfortunately) that the main job of police should be to keep the peace: to preserve and protect and defend, not attack and destroy and dominate and terrorize.

Lawrence's odyssey began in 2008, when his son-in-law, a likable but also brooding and recessive man, snapped during an argument, struck his wife, then went out into his pickup truck with a pistol and sat there pointing the weapon at himself. The house was swarmed by tactical officers from all over the county looking for a piece of the action. What happened next was in dispute until Lawrence clarified things after-the-fact. The official version of events said that Lawrence's son-in-law was shot dead after an hours-long standoff with police (an initial police report erroneously claimed he killed himself). What actually happened was that dozens of tactical officers in riot gear took over the neighborhood like an occupying army, driving armored trucks up onto lawns, putting sniper units all over the neighborhood, and even sending a team to break into the house next door, smashing windows and ripping out screens to get a better shot at the suicidal man.

Lawrence rushed to the scene as soon as he heard what was happening, and afterward, his instincts kicked in and he began conducting his own investigation, collecting shell casings and evidence of gas and chemical sprays and "flash-bang" grenades that official investigators had missed, and putting them in sealed evidence bags. One hundred and eleven shots were fired in total. Lawrence contends that his son-in-law did not have to die—that the situation was exacerbated and escalated by the John Wayne mentality of police tactical units. They started out in the late 1960s in response to urban riots and hostage situations, were co-opted into faceless, black-clad, military-styled strike teams during the 1980s War on Drugs, and now seem to have their own identity and agenda.
Lawrence stores evidence on this case and others in an airplane hangar. The place is an extraordinary sight; a gallery of misconduct, with photos and documents lining every available wall. Lawrence has become an advocate of deescalating police tactics and ending the stateside arms race. Too many people are dying for no good reason, he believes. The SWAT culture has become rotten and frightening, a greater threat to democracy than the crises it was invented to address.

This film by Brad Barber and Scott Christopherson—a debut feature, remarkably—combines the best elements of old school and new school nonfiction film making. On the old-school end, you have a series of character portraits that are perceptive and empathetic without seeming to shade the truth or tip over into special pleading, and stories of SWAT team brutality and arrogance that strengthen Lawrence's assertions. (Among the most appalling of these is another Utah incident where SWAT officers broke into the wrong house on Christmas Eve due to a paperwork error, terrified a family of three, then exited, not with an apology, but by telling the terrified father, who naturally had assumed the cops were home invaders, that if he'd had a gun instead of a bat, "you'd be dead.") New school elements include the alternately mournful and ominous score (by Michah Dahl Anderson), the strikingly composed inserts of evidence (an Errol Morris touch), and extensive footage taken from police videos (which allows for a clinical study of what went wrong, as well for as an intensely cinematic recreation of horrifying moments.) This is one of the year's best films.