George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?

[Vociferous]

Christ, man, you could have responded sooner! Now I've already far exceeded my weekly posting quota and am feeling thoroughly spent.

Anyways, something something about "immanence" and Brandenburg vs. Ohio goes here, I think, but as I said, I'm exhausted.

Brandenburg v Ohio states that speech can be punished if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". After over a year of riots, it is likely to incite lawless action. The crowd just didn't happen to get big enough to get that bold.

Threats of Violence (formerly called Terroristic Threats) is a serious, felony-level offense. Unfortunately, many people are surprised to learn — all too late — that careless expressions of anger or rage can qualify as a felony-level crime. Minnesota’s Threats of Violence law is broad and includes multiple forms of conduct.
https://www.balmerlawoffice.com/practice-areas/threats-of-violence/​

And the Minnesota statute doesn't even mention immanence: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.713

Also, slinging poo is every bit as acceptable as flinging poo--if I'm not mistaken, the English and them sorts would be more apt to use the former.

Like I said, it's an art. A sling uses a relatively constant velocity of the arm throughout, whereas a fling has a decidedly accelerated flourish right before release.

 

[parmalee]

Brandenburg v Ohio states that speech can be punished if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". After over a year of riots, it is likely to incite lawless action. The crowd just didn't happen to get big enough to get that bold.

Threats of Violence (formerly called Terroristic Threats) is a serious, felony-level offense. Unfortunately, many people are surprised to learn — all too late — that careless expressions of anger or rage can qualify as a felony-level crime. Minnesota’s Threats of Violence law is broad and includes multiple forms of conduct.
https://www.balmerlawoffice.com/practice-areas/threats-of-violence/​

And the Minnesota statute doesn't even mention immanence: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.713

Kinda refreshing that neither you nor I pointed out that we both misspelled "imminence." Progress! (Whoops. Yeah, I see what I did there.)

Either way, how much can one read into the absence of imminence within the Minnesota statute? I would not go so far as to state that such is implied regardless, but it is rather difficult to prosecute based upon a threat wherein the time frame for a future unlawful action is left wholly unspecified. With respect to my own words, "if I saw," "I would," etc. are sufficiently vague as to be protected free speech. (I know what I can "get away with"--legally, at least.)

"I swear I'll slap the f*** out of both of you?" Somewhat less vague, perhaps, but there is the magnitude of said "threat" to consider: slap the fuck out of you--Chauvin is not an infant, a serious "slapping" is most unlikely to prove even remotely injurious to his person.

Like I said, it's an art. A sling uses a relatively constant velocity of the arm throughout, whereas a fling has a decidedly accelerated flourish right before release.

I would argue that there is an art to either method. Personally, I cannot attest to matters of poo, but with, say, a drum head or a piano key, both methods can yield favorable results.

 

[wegs]

Looks like the defense begins its case tomorrow, closing arguments potentially starting Monday. Much respect to both the prosecution and defense - both have done well so far. This is a tough case.

 

[Vociferous]

Kinda refreshing that neither you nor I pointed out that we both misspelled "imminence." Progress! (Whoops. Yeah, I see what I did there.)

I blame my theism.

Either way, how much can one read into the absence of imminence within the Minnesota statute? I would not go so far as to state that such is implied regardless, but it is rather difficult to prosecute based upon a threat wherein the time frame for a future unlawful action is left wholly unspecified. With respect to my own words, "if I saw," "I would," etc. are sufficiently vague as to be protected free speech. (I know what I can "get away with"--legally, at least.)

The Minnesota statute says "whoever threatens, directly or indirectly". That would make your indirect threat legally actionable, if you actually said it in Minnesota. Like I cited, "careless expressions of anger or rage can qualify as a felony-level crime." You might be able to appeal it, but personally, I wouldn't count on that.

"I swear I'll slap the f*** out of both of you?" Somewhat less vague, perhaps, but there is the magnitude of said "threat" to consider: slap the fuck out of you--Chauvin is not an infant, a serious "slapping" is most unlikely to prove even remotely injurious to his person.

The magnitude of the threat has to be assessed within the context of an angry crowd, where one such incitement could lead to a lot more violence than that.

 

[parmalee]

I blame my theism.

I blame my silly master's thesis on Heidegger's consistent misreading of Eckhart.

The magnitude of the threat has to be assessed within the context of an angry crowd, where one such incitement could lead to a lot more violence than that.

Likewise, the magnitude of the alleged threat has to be assessed on the basis of the circumstances arousing the witnesses' "anger" in the first place

 

[Vociferous]

Likewise, the magnitude of the alleged threat has to be assessed on the basis of the circumstances arousing the witnesses' "anger" in the first place

There is no legal justification for vigilante/mob justice.

 

[parmalee]

There is no legal justification for vigilante/mob justice.

And there was no "vigilante/mob justice," there were only a few purported "threats" made by a couple of witnesses that ought to be considered within the context of the traumatic events that were unfolding.

 

[wegs]

And there was no "vigilante/mob justice," there were only a few purported "threats" made by a couple of witnesses that ought to be considered within the context of the traumatic events that were unfolding.

This is what many of the expert witnesses have testified to after viewing the videos. Maybe Chauvin should take the stand at this point and share his mindset at that time, with the jury.

 

[parmalee]

This is what many of the expert witnesses have testified to after viewing the videos. Maybe Chauvin should take the stand at this point and share his mindset at that time, with the jury.

I was particularly impressed by Donald William's (the MMA guy, from day one or two) testimony. The defense was trying to get him to say that his righteous anger was somehow equivalent to "loss of control" (or potential loss), but he was quite consistent and clear about being angry, whilst maintaining total self-control.

(Incidentally, James' initial response to me in this thread reminded me somewhat of the defense attorney's tactic: control my "urges" to violence. Why speak of urges, and not rhetoric? To my reading, the term "urges" implies either that I have a history of violence, or a propensity towards violence which I must constantly keep in check, or something along those lines. IOW, a completely unfounded accusation, and rather defamatory.

For the record: I've been a vegan for nearly 40 years--basically, since I was a kid. And in the entirety of my adult life, I've only ever struck precisely one person--and it was in defense of another, and he seriously fucking deserved it. Moreover, at just over 6 foot and weighing 135 pounds, I'm rather comically gaunt, scrawny and non-threatening, so... Violence would be ill-advised from just about any angle.

Sorry. I probably ought to have addressed that to James, specifically, but I just wanted to clarify the nature of my umbrage for any and all readers.)

 

[wegs]

I was particularly impressed by Donald William's (the MMA guy, from day one or two) testimony. The defense was trying to get him to say that his righteous anger was somehow equivalent to "loss of control" (or potential loss), but he was quite consistent and clear about being angry, whilst maintaining total self-control.

Same, but as a bystander, I get the sense that he wasn't taken as seriously as the expert witnesses. I've been recording the trial, and the prosecution's final witness today is a 'use-of-force' expert, and probably was the best witness they've had on the stand, imo.

https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-live-updates-050c102166aeb99619b32a55d9e9335e

(Incidentally, James' initial response to me in this thread reminded me somewhat of the defense attorney's tactic: control my "urges" to violence. Why speak of urges, and not rhetoric? To my reading, the term "urges" implies either that I have a history of violence, or a propensity towards violence which I must constantly keep in check, or something along those lines. IOW, a completely unfounded accusation, and rather defamatory.

For the record: I've been a vegan for nearly 40 years--basically, since I was a kid. And in the entirety of my adult life, I've only ever struck precisely one person--and it was in defense of another, and he seriously fucking deserved it. Moreover, at just over 6 foot and weighing 135 pounds, I'm rather comically gaunt, scrawny and non-threatening, so... Violence would be ill-advised from just about any angle.

Sorry. I probably ought to have addressed that to James, specifically, but I just wanted to clarify the nature of my umbrage for any and all readers.)

I saw your comment and thought you were expressing anger/passion over Floyd's death, but once we post something on the internet, it sometimes can take on new meaning. And it remains...forevah.

 

[Vociferous]

And there was no "vigilante/mob justice," there were only a few purported "threats" made by a couple of witnesses that ought to be considered within the context of the traumatic events that were unfolding.

The threat was sufficient for the police and even the EMTs to deem the scene unsafe.

 

[billvon]

The threat was sufficient for the police and even the EMTs to deem the scene unsafe.

And yet when a white middle aged man was recently pulled over for driving the wrong way on a highway, causing half a dozen accidents in the process, presented as very intoxicated and belligerent, and threatened to beat up the cop - "I could take you" - there was no threat seen that required action to be taken, much less kneeling on his neck until he was dead.

Interesting. I wonder what was different between the two.

 

[parmalee]

I saw your comment and thought you were expressing anger/passion over Floyd's death, but once we post something on the internet, it sometimes can take on new meaning. And it remains...forevah.

It was that, but it was also an attempt to demonstrate that people cannot always be expected to behave entirely rationally when, say, witnessing a murder!

I was thinking about this:

I love how everyone is an expert resource regarding police procedures and arrest protocol etc but ignore the witness testimony in this case by actual active duty police officers brought in by the prosecution, who are stating what the procedures are.

I’ve also noticed that with these big public trials, a lot people all of a sudden-like seem to know precisely how they are apt to respond, should they find themselves within such a situation--either as a witness or as the victim. Is everyone a Navy SEAL now or something? You can’t possibly know how you’re going to respond to a traumatic event.

The second time that I was beaten by a cop--well, the time that I was actually conscious (and not seizing) and had foolishly called the police, thinking they might actually help--I specifically recall being on the pavement, in a very similar position to George Floyd (I believe the officer's knee was on my back), having my head repeatedly pummeled by this massive guy's fist and pleading with him to simply arrest me. I just wanted the beating to stop. And I specifically recall refraining from putting my hands up, to protect my head, because I was afraid he would just pull out his gun and shoot me!

In retrospect, it was actually kind of funny--I mean, begging a cop to arrest me, even as I was the one who had called them for assistance, and all while the guy who put his fist (intended for my face) through the window of my front door stood by watching. It's not that I am normally utterly fearless, but I do have a tendency to argue... and I just gave up. It may actually have been the best way for me to respond to the situation--I mean, I was totally helpless and there really was nothing I could do to abate the pummeling of my skull--but it also seemed... out of character for me, I guess?

A person may well respond in an entirely normal and rational manner to a traumatic event, but absent training specifically intended for situations of such nature, they have no way of knowing that.

Whereas cops are very much trained specifically for situations of such nature, and they really ought to have a better sense of, say, how threatening a crowd really is and how much of a threat a "perp" actually poses.

 

[Seattle]

And yet when a white middle aged man was recently pulled over for driving the wrong way on a highway, causing half a dozen accidents in the process, presented as very intoxicated and belligerent, and threatened to beat up the cop - "I could take you" - there was no threat seen that required action to be taken, much less kneeling on his neck until he was dead.

Interesting. I wonder what was different between the two.

He didn't run, fight with the cop or quickly reach into the glove compartment? Or maybe the difference is that we aren't hearing about it when white guys get shot, no videos on the news, no protests.

But then again, it must all be about skin color and not what the stats show or what the people are doing.

Black guys don't be shot from saying I could beat you up. The guy who is now paralyzed didn't get shot when he was wrestling on the ground with the cops, it was when he ran to his van and reached in that he got shot.

You have video of a lot of that happening with white guys where they don't get shot? Pulling the race card gets old when that's the only card you pull. Didn't you know that?

 

[wegs]

It was that, but it was also an attempt to demonstrate that people cannot always be expected to behave entirely rationally when, say, witnessing a murder!

I was thinking about this:


I’ve also noticed that with these big public trials, a lot people all of a sudden-like seem to know precisely how they are apt to respond, should they find themselves within such a situation--either as a witness or as the victim. Is everyone a Navy SEAL now or something? You can’t possibly know how you’re going to respond to a traumatic event.

The second time that I was beaten by a cop--well, the time that I was actually conscious (and not seizing) and had foolishly called the police, thinking they might actually help--I specifically recall being on the pavement, in a very similar position to George Floyd (I believe the officer's knee was on my back), having my head repeatedly pummeled by this massive guy's fist and pleading with him to simply arrest me. I just wanted the beating to stop. And I specifically recall refraining from putting my hands up, to protect my head, because I was afraid he would just pull out his gun and shoot me!

In retrospect, it was actually kind of funny--I mean, begging a cop to arrest me, even as I was the one who had called them for assistance, and all while the guy who put his fist (intended for my face) through the window of my front door stood by watching. It's not that I am normally utterly fearless, but I do have a tendency to argue... and I just gave up. It may actually have been the best way for me to respond to the situation--I mean, I was totally helpless and there really was nothing I could do to abate the pummeling of my skull--but it also seemed... out of character for me, I guess?

A person may well respond in an entirely normal and rational manner to a traumatic event, but absent training specifically intended for situations of such nature, they have no way of knowing that.

Whereas cops are very much trained specifically for situations of such nature, and they really ought to have a better sense of, say, how threatening a crowd really is and how much of a threat a "perp" actually poses.

Wait a minute. You called for help, and the police officer who responded, assaulted you? I don't understand what happened. Was your house being broken into?

Re: Chauvin - Obviously, the ideal situation for any police officer would be for every lawbreaker to comply. But, that doesn't always happen. I think(?) what this case comes down to is really just the final last minutes of Floyd's life. Even if Chauvin's actions could be seen as justified up until that point, he at the worst, caused Floyd to die, at the least...allowed him to die. One of the officers who was assisting him that day in restraining Floyd asked Chauvin (can be heard in different videos) if they should move him to his side. Chauvin said no. Why, we don't know. Those last four to five minutes were crucial. Whether one considers Floyd a saint or not, really shouldn't matter. We all have different opinions on this, but only the jury's verdict matters.

An interesting read:

https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/deaths-police-custody-united-states/

 

[Vociferous]

The threat was sufficient for the police and even the EMTs to deem the scene unsafe.

And yet when a white middle aged man was recently pulled over for driving the wrong way on a highway, causing half a dozen accidents in the process, presented as very intoxicated and belligerent, and threatened to beat up the cop - "I could take you" - there was no threat seen that required action to be taken, much less kneeling on his neck until he was dead.

Interesting. I wonder what was different between the two.

Not knowing the details, the differences are likely that it was one guy, no angry crowd, and alcohol doesn't make people stronger, by way of excited delirium, the way methamphetamine can. Only alcohol withdrawal can cause excited delirium.

But if you want to share a source, or even a name to search, for that story, I'd be happy to take a closer look.

 

[parmalee]

Wait a minute. You called for help, and the police officer who responded, assaulted you? I don't understand what happened. Was your house being broken into?

It was like two or three in the morning and, for some strange reason, the neighbor who lived in a carriage house behind our own decided to "party"--drinking, shouting, pissing, breaking bottles and the like--on our front porch. I went downstairs and asked him to take it to his own domicile and he charged at me. I swiftly stepped back and shut the door, and he put his fist through the window of our front door. Feeling a bit unsettled, we called the cops. One of my biggest regrets.

Two cars with four cops responded. The guy in charge (I guess?) had a bit of a substance abuse problem and a history of beating up teenagers, mostly black, in our neighborhood. Moreover, the drunken neighbor turned out to be a buddy of his.

We asked him to, at the very least, make a report so that we could account for the broken window to our landlord and he just flipped out--you know, the audacity of us telling him how to do his job and whatnots. He grabbed me and threw me off the porch onto the sidewalk, and then he got on top of me and just started pummeling my head into the pavement. It was utterly bizarre! The other three cops just stood by with their dicks in their hands. Apparently, according to my girlfriend, they did not appear to especially approve of my assailant's actions, but neither were they about to do anything to stop it. And my girlfriend was telling them over and over again that I was epileptic and that pounding my skull might prove especially injurious, in my case, but... nothing. The one cop just continued to beat my skull, whilst the others did jack shit.

There was some media coverage and a couple of attorneys offered to represent me against the police department, pro bono; however, they also advised that should I choose to do so, it would be in my best interest to relocate to another state. Seriously! I probably ought to have, but I did have certain vested interests in the place I was living at the time.

In retrospect, I really wish that I had pursued legal action.

Re: Chauvin - Obviously, the ideal situation for any police officer would be for every lawbreaker to comply. But, that doesn't always happen. I think(?) what this case comes down to is really just the final last minutes of Floyd's life. Even if Chauvin's actions could be seen as justified up until that point, he at the worst, caused Floyd to die, at the least...allowed him to die. One of the officers who was assisting him that day in restraining Floyd asked Chauvin (can be heard in different videos) if they should move him to his side. Chauvin said no. Why, we don't know. Those last four to five minutes were crucial. Whether one considers Floyd a saint or not, really shouldn't matter. We all have different opinions on this, but only the jury's verdict matters.

Yeah, at the absolute very least, Chauvin is guilty of depraved indifference. And the reluctance of cops to question or challenge one another is pretty damn chilling.

 

[wegs]

It was like two or three in the morning and, for some strange reason, the neighbor who lived in a carriage house behind our own decided to "party"--drinking, shouting, pissing, breaking bottles and the like--on our front porch. I went downstairs and asked him to take it to his own domicile and he charged at me. I swiftly stepped back and shut the door, and he put his fist through the window of our front door. Feeling a bit unsettled, we called the cops. One of my biggest regrets.

Two cars with four cops responded. The guy in charge (I guess?) had a bit of a substance abuse problem and a history of beating up teenagers, mostly black, in our neighborhood. Moreover, the drunken neighbor turned out to be a buddy of his.

We asked him to, at the very least, make a report so that we could account for the broken window to our landlord and he just flipped out--you know, the audacity of us telling him how to do his job and whatnots. He grabbed me and threw me off the porch onto the sidewalk, and then he got on top of me and just started pummeling my head into the pavement. It was utterly bizarre! The other three cops just stood by with their dicks in their hands. Apparently, according to my girlfriend, they did not appear to especially approve of my assailant's actions, but neither were they about to do anything to stop it. And my girlfriend was telling them over and over again that I was epileptic and that pounding my skull might prove especially injurious, in my case, but... nothing. The one cop just continued to beat my skull, whilst the others did jack shit.

There was some media coverage and a couple of attorneys offered to represent me against the police department, pro bono; however, they also advised that should I choose to do so, it would be in my best interest to relocate to another state. Seriously! I probably ought to have, but I did have certain vested interests in the place I was living at the time.

In retrospect, I really wish that I had pursued legal action.



Yeah, at the absolute very least, Chauvin is guilty of depraved indifference. And the reluctance of cops to question or challenge one another is pretty damn chilling.

That’s crazy! Have you lost a sense of trust in the police, having gone through this?

 

[Seattle]

That’s crazy! Have you lost a sense of trust in the police, having gone through this?

No, it's brought them closer.

 

[wegs]

No, it's brought them closer.

If he feels a sense of distrust for police, in general.