Quote:
Originally Posted by Indigo Cardinal
This. It's not whether Floyd was a good man or not. It's about if we're okay with the police torturing people to death.
If you're okay with that, then you're just simply opening the door for that to happen to you someday.
|
Good statement.
Of course, we all know that there are times that the police simply have to use deadly force, whether defending others or themselves.
I am well old enough to recall when, during the 1960s, black men were routinely killed by police for 'resisting arrest' or 'attempting to escape'.
In those days before the Civil Rights Act, and even for a while thereafter, a police officer could kill a black man almost with impunity. There were never any cameras around. The other officers, if present, would back him up in his version of events.
If by chance the police officer was charged and brought to trial, the defense would routinely 'strike' any black person in the jury pool (and they were rare anyway). Perfectly legal. All white jury.
Any black witnesses, if they even made it to the stand, would find themselves on trial, if they had any legal problems of their own (and, by God, if they were a witness, by the time of trial you bet they did have legal problems; the cops knew where they lived).
It was the Rodney King videotape that opened a lot of white eyes to what the black community had been saying for years: we are being beaten, even to death, by the police.
As camcorders came into more usage, more such events unfolded. Now, with the modern cell phone, virtually every incident is captured by onlookers. Of course, many police departments require officers to wear body cams, which often seem to malfunction during an arrest.
As for Maxine Waters and those thinking that her stupid statement is Mr. Chauvin's 'get out of jail free' card: think again.
Briefly (and Minnesota law may be different, but I doubt it), the defense would have to prove that 'but for' Ms. Water's statement, the jury would have found Mr. Chauvin 'not guilty'. A heavy burden. Plus, you know that the individual jury members will tell any court that they obeyed the order of the judge to not watch the news during the presentation of evidence (once they entered the jury room, they were sequestered).
If I understand right, Mr. Chauvin has opted to have the sentencing phase in front of the judge, not the jury. I believe that Mr. Chauvin had a choice of judge or jury for sentencing, and after being convicted of all three counts in a very short period of time, he wisely opted for the judge.
I will finish that I was a little surprised of conviction on all three counts. I figured that there would be at least one juror that would insist on convicting on the least serious charge, and exoneration on the two higher charges. That all 12 jurors agreed to convict on all three is damning. Of course, that 9 minute videotape was damning.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
