ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Norman Teigen on April 20, 2021, 05:32:57 PM

Title: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Norman Teigen on April 20, 2021, 05:32:57 PM
KYRIE ELEISON.  What does it mean?  There are issues here. Lord have mercy.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 20, 2021, 05:51:04 PM
It could be a turning point in how we view the actions of police officers that injure or kill people under their care.
It was interesting to note that members of the law-enforcement community were involved in the prosecution of this incident.
And that means that what will be going on in the streets of Minneapolis tonight will be celebrations rather than “demonstration.“
But there is much more to do in many areas of society and on many levels, to eliminate the scourge of systemic racism or to mitigate its effects.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 20, 2021, 06:03:45 PM
Since Derek Chauvin was convicted on all three charges for which he was tried, I don't anticipate the level of unrest in Minneapolis that might have occurred if he had been acquitted.  Of course, there will be groups that may try to incite violence and destruction, but I hope that community leaders, especially those within the black community, will work hard to keep the calm.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 20, 2021, 06:19:01 PM
And why would they not? But "calm" is not quite the right word. If this is a victory for more equitable justice, there is reason for some exuberance. Right now, on MSNBC, we have a series of prayers going on.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 20, 2021, 06:49:45 PM
My concern was that the city would be racked by violent rioting, such as happened quite frequently last summer. I understand the exuberance.  The prayers are good and appropriate.  I just know that there was a heightened concern about physical unrest in the cities requiring the presence of the National Guard, additional law enforcement and protective boarding up of businesses.  I pray that none of the anticipated violence occurs. 
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 20, 2021, 07:02:04 PM
I think there will be an appeal, and Chauvin will have at least a fighting chance of acquittal on the most serious charge.

The big disconnect between the "sides" of this case seems to divide those who see it in individual terms and those who see it in larger scale, group terms. The former tend to have some measure of sympathy for the officer. They also tend to see Floyd as at least partly to blame for his condition, having filled his own lungs with a lethal dose of fentanyl and resisted arrest. The latter tend to have no sympathy for the defendant and to see Floyd as purely an innocent victim. They seem to view the case in terms of the police generally vs. the African-American community generally rather than an individual officer and an individual victim. The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent. Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case.

I reject group identity politics and critical race theory, so I find myself sympathizing with a plight of the defendant as well as the victim in different ways. I don't think Chauvin acted with malice or intent to kill, nor do I think it was a racially motivated event. While he no doubt handled it terribly, a charge of excessive use of force and/or police misconduct along with involuntary manslaughter would seem to have fit what happened. Maybe I'm wrong and Chauvin arrived on the scene wanting Floyd dead. Or maybe he knew he was killing him and didn't care. But I doubt it. I think he is being painted as a monster because of the confluence of the horrible optics of the video fitting the perfectly with a sociological agenda. And I'm fairly confident I would think the same thing whether Floyd was a member of my congregation, or Chauvin, or both for that matter.   

 
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dave Benke on April 20, 2021, 07:16:24 PM
I believe this was an actual "moment of inflection" in our country.  The prayer offered by Rev. Sharpton and the prayers offered by others were not of celebration but of accountability having taken place.  I don't foresee a lighter sentence down the road for Chauvin. 

In terms of violence, the last major moment of ugly violence was perpetrated on January 6 against the government of the United States by people many of whom were either militia or with military/police experience carrying out acts of sedition.  The question I have is not about urban black/brown violence in the cities but of how this affects those groups.

There was an hour-long ESPN show just now on the response of athletes, black/brown/white, at the professional level, to the events of the last months.  All of the leagues have come out very strongly in this time-frame against systemic racism from the top level down to the players; again, a moment of inflection.

I'm guessing there will be statements from the national leadership level of Lutheran and really all denominations.  However, what means something to the Church at a deeper level, I think, is what happens at the local level.  We have - against the grain in the rest of my pastoral experience - been pledging allegiance to the flag before each service for the past fourteen months, Sundays and Wednesdays.  "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."   And then we have come to the altar as one for the Lord's Meal, to be strengthened for our personal and communal journey.  Both realms - left and right - belong to God, as do we.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 20, 2021, 07:27:03 PM
Peter writes:
The big disconnect between the "sides" of this case seems to divide those who see it in individual terms and those who see it in larger scale, group terms.
I comment:
Then you aren't listening to the members of the Floyd family and his friends. He is the individual. The fact that others - such as you - also see it as "identity politics" is quite a different matter.

Peter:
The former tend to have some measure of sympathy for the officer. They also tend to see Floyd as at least partly to blame for his condition, having filled his own lungs with a lethal dose of fentanyl and resisted arrest. The latter tend to have no sympathy for the defendant and to see Floyd as purely an innocent victim.
Me:
Are you suggesting that it's ok to kneel on a physically impaired person? No one is totally "innocent," but at the time that deadly force was applied to someone only suspected of a relatively minor offense. Your remark comes close to the comments excusing rape or attempted rape because a woman dressed a certain way.

Peter:
They seem to view the case in terms of the police generally vs. the African-American community generally rather than an individual officer and an individual victim. The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent.
Me:
Didn't watch much of the trial, did you?

Peter:
Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case.
Me:
As has been shown time again, something like that would probably never happen to a white person.

Peter:
I reject group identity politics and critical race theory, so I find myself sympathizing with a plight of the defendant as well as the victim in different ways. I don't think Chauvin acted with malice or intent to kill, nor do I think it was a racially motivated event.
Me:
Read the charges, read the law. With some of the charges "acting with malice or intent to kill" or motivated by race is not necessary. But the case upheld in court indicates that the officer's intent was indeed malicious.

Peter:
While he no doubt handled it terribly, a charge of excessive use of force and/or police misconduct along with involuntary manslaughter would seem to have fit what happened. Maybe I'm wrong and Chauvin arrived on the scene wanting Floyd dead. Or maybe he knew he was killing him and didn't care. But I doubt it.
Me:
You doubt it because you reject the existence of systematic racism, especially in law enforcement, present in our society. The prosecution made the case that he didn't care what was happening to the man under his knee.

Peter:
I think he is being painted as a monster because of the confluence of the horrible optics of the video fitting the perfectly with a sociological agenda.
Me:
Whew. At least you agree that it looked bad. Chauvin was convicted of causing Floyd's death "while committing or attempting to commit a related felony, in this case third-degree assault." That's sometimes called "felony murder."
And the officer was convicted of third-degree murder, where the jury believed the evidence showed him causing death during an act that was "eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."
The officer was a trained, veteran policeman who supposedly knew something about the use of force, even the felonious used of force and what constituted murder and lack of "regard for human life."
So in this incident, even if he had recently petted a puppy or helped an old lady across the street, the officer was indeed a monster.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dan Fienen on April 20, 2021, 07:49:14 PM
As I followed the trial in the news, it seemed to me that the verdict as reached was warranted by the evidence. What motivated Chauvin to act as he did was not clear to me. Whatever his motivation, it seems apparent that Chauvin continued to apply force to Floyd after he was restrained.


A number of commentators, not just Peter, tried to make this America on trial.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 20, 2021, 08:43:47 PM
Peter writes:
The big disconnect between the "sides" of this case seems to divide those who see it in individual terms and those who see it in larger scale, group terms.
I comment:
Then you aren't listening to the members of the Floyd family and his friends. He is the individual. The fact that others - such as you - also see it as "identity politics" is quite a different matter.

Peter:
The former tend to have some measure of sympathy for the officer. They also tend to see Floyd as at least partly to blame for his condition, having filled his own lungs with a lethal dose of fentanyl and resisted arrest. The latter tend to have no sympathy for the defendant and to see Floyd as purely an innocent victim.
Me:
Are you suggesting that it's ok to kneel on a physically impaired person? No one is totally "innocent," but at the time that deadly force was applied to someone only suspected of a relatively minor offense. Your remark comes close to the comments excusing rape or attempted rape because a woman dressed a certain way.

Peter:
They seem to view the case in terms of the police generally vs. the African-American community generally rather than an individual officer and an individual victim. The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent.
Me:
Didn't watch much of the trial, did you?

Peter:
Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case.
Me:
As has been shown time again, something like that would probably never happen to a white person.

Peter:
I reject group identity politics and critical race theory, so I find myself sympathizing with a plight of the defendant as well as the victim in different ways. I don't think Chauvin acted with malice or intent to kill, nor do I think it was a racially motivated event.
Me:
Read the charges, read the law. With some of the charges "acting with malice or intent to kill" or motivated by race is not necessary. But the case upheld in court indicates that the officer's intent was indeed malicious.

Peter:
While he no doubt handled it terribly, a charge of excessive use of force and/or police misconduct along with involuntary manslaughter would seem to have fit what happened. Maybe I'm wrong and Chauvin arrived on the scene wanting Floyd dead. Or maybe he knew he was killing him and didn't care. But I doubt it.
Me:
You doubt it because you reject the existence of systematic racism, especially in law enforcement, present in our society. The prosecution made the case that he didn't care what was happening to the man under his knee.

Peter:
I think he is being painted as a monster because of the confluence of the horrible optics of the video fitting the perfectly with a sociological agenda.
Me:
Whew. At least you agree that it looked bad. Chauvin was convicted of causing Floyd's death "while committing or attempting to commit a related felony, in this case third-degree assault." That's sometimes called "felony murder."
And the officer was convicted of third-degree murder, where the jury believed the evidence showed him causing death during an act that was "eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."
The officer was a trained, veteran policeman who supposedly knew something about the use of force, even the felonious used of force and what constituted murder and lack of "regard for human life."
So in this incident, even if he had recently petted a puppy or helped an old lady across the street, the officer was indeed a monster.
We disagree at the basic level of assumptions. "More equitable justice" was neither plaintiff nor defendant here. Your whole take on it has been that he was clearly guilty and the only question was whether the system was too racist to convict him. In a way, this parallels the debate of "death from Covid" vs. "death with Covid." Floyd had Covid at the time. He died with it, not from it, at least not for the most part. He also had an officer kneeling on him (not cutting off his windpipe) at the time. He died with that, too, not from it, at least not for the most part. The experts refused to answer the question of whether Floyd would have died anyone without any police action taken on the grounds that they don't deal in what-ifs. But they did admit that if they'd found Floyd later, the lack of any signs of injury in his neck/throat coupled with the lethal level of fentanyl in his lungs would have made it a fairly straightforward finding of overdose as the cause of death. As it is, the adrenaline that comes from resisting arrest coupled with his heart condition and massive amounts of drugs in his system likely would have killed him even if Chauvin had left him in the back seat of the car. I can't prove it, but I can say that there is at least reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd.

It comes far too easily to you to think of people as depraved monsters. I don't know Chauvin or much about him, but I very much doubt he is a monster of depraved heart. You and the jury disagree. He'll likely be in jail a long time. I think far lesser charges would have better reflected the real crime of misconduct/brutality. 
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Tom Eckstein on April 20, 2021, 09:48:52 PM
I think there will be an appeal, and Chauvin will have at least a fighting chance of acquittal on the most serious charge.

The big disconnect between the "sides" of this case seems to divide those who see it in individual terms and those who see it in larger scale, group terms. The former tend to have some measure of sympathy for the officer. They also tend to see Floyd as at least partly to blame for his condition, having filled his own lungs with a lethal dose of fentanyl and resisted arrest. The latter tend to have no sympathy for the defendant and to see Floyd as purely an innocent victim. They seem to view the case in terms of the police generally vs. the African-American community generally rather than an individual officer and an individual victim. The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent. Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case.

I reject group identity politics and critical race theory, so I find myself sympathizing with a plight of the defendant as well as the victim in different ways. I don't think Chauvin acted with malice or intent to kill, nor do I think it was a racially motivated event. While he no doubt handled it terribly, a charge of excessive use of force and/or police misconduct along with involuntary manslaughter would seem to have fit what happened. Maybe I'm wrong and Chauvin arrived on the scene wanting Floyd dead. Or maybe he knew he was killing him and didn't care. But I doubt it. I think he is being painted as a monster because of the confluence of the horrible optics of the video fitting the perfectly with a sociological agenda. And I'm fairly confident I would think the same thing whether Floyd was a member of my congregation, or Chauvin, or both for that matter.   

 

Peter, above you wrote:  "The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent. Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case."

Your words are pure wisdom!
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Tom Eckstein on April 20, 2021, 09:57:27 PM
Peter writes:
The big disconnect between the "sides" of this case seems to divide those who see it in individual terms and those who see it in larger scale, group terms.
I comment:
Then you aren't listening to the members of the Floyd family and his friends. He is the individual. The fact that others - such as you - also see it as "identity politics" is quite a different matter.

Peter:
The former tend to have some measure of sympathy for the officer. They also tend to see Floyd as at least partly to blame for his condition, having filled his own lungs with a lethal dose of fentanyl and resisted arrest. The latter tend to have no sympathy for the defendant and to see Floyd as purely an innocent victim.
Me:
Are you suggesting that it's ok to kneel on a physically impaired person? No one is totally "innocent," but at the time that deadly force was applied to someone only suspected of a relatively minor offense. Your remark comes close to the comments excusing rape or attempted rape because a woman dressed a certain way.

Peter:
They seem to view the case in terms of the police generally vs. the African-American community generally rather than an individual officer and an individual victim. The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent.
Me:
Didn't watch much of the trial, did you?

Peter:
Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case.
Me:
As has been shown time again, something like that would probably never happen to a white person.

Peter:
I reject group identity politics and critical race theory, so I find myself sympathizing with a plight of the defendant as well as the victim in different ways. I don't think Chauvin acted with malice or intent to kill, nor do I think it was a racially motivated event.
Me:
Read the charges, read the law. With some of the charges "acting with malice or intent to kill" or motivated by race is not necessary. But the case upheld in court indicates that the officer's intent was indeed malicious.

Peter:
While he no doubt handled it terribly, a charge of excessive use of force and/or police misconduct along with involuntary manslaughter would seem to have fit what happened. Maybe I'm wrong and Chauvin arrived on the scene wanting Floyd dead. Or maybe he knew he was killing him and didn't care. But I doubt it.
Me:
You doubt it because you reject the existence of systematic racism, especially in law enforcement, present in our society. The prosecution made the case that he didn't care what was happening to the man under his knee.

Peter:
I think he is being painted as a monster because of the confluence of the horrible optics of the video fitting the perfectly with a sociological agenda.
Me:
Whew. At least you agree that it looked bad. Chauvin was convicted of causing Floyd's death "while committing or attempting to commit a related felony, in this case third-degree assault." That's sometimes called "felony murder."
And the officer was convicted of third-degree murder, where the jury believed the evidence showed him causing death during an act that was "eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."
The officer was a trained, veteran policeman who supposedly knew something about the use of force, even the felonious used of force and what constituted murder and lack of "regard for human life."
So in this incident, even if he had recently petted a puppy or helped an old lady across the street, the officer was indeed a monster.

Charles writes above:

Peter:
Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case.
Me:
As has been shown time again, something like that would probably never happen to a white person.


Charles, check the stats on the link below and you will see that "white people" are indeed killed by police all the time.  We just don't hear about it because such deaths are not "racially motivated."  Of course, I see no evidence that George Floyd's death, athough tragic, was "racially motivated."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/?fbclid=IwAR3fcXhN7qkQ7IHLfjG6BhXdRx3-BXRFMBf6g7fmU7mWYX88RrxWHflqNJI (https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/?fbclid=IwAR3fcXhN7qkQ7IHLfjG6BhXdRx3-BXRFMBf6g7fmU7mWYX88RrxWHflqNJI)
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Robert Johnson on April 20, 2021, 10:07:22 PM
KYRIE ELEISON.  What does it mean?  There are issues here. Lord have mercy.

It means the jurors were afraid for their safety and their homes and their families.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 20, 2021, 10:39:10 PM
Robert Johnson has just displayed his massive and miraculous ability to look into the minds of 12 people he has never met, those people facing a situation he is far from and unable to understand.
OK, "law and order" people; what's the deal here?
There was an arrest, a trial, a conviction. Do we respect that?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 20, 2021, 11:48:05 PM
Robert Johnson has just displayed his massive and miraculous ability to look into the minds of 12 people he has never met, those people facing a situation he is far from and unable to understand.
OK, "law and order" people; what's the deal here?
There was an arrest, a trial, a conviction. Do we respect that?
Of course we respect it. That doesn't mean we agree with every facet of it or think it couldn't be wrong in this or that case. You still respect SCOTUS rulings despite thinking they got it wrong in Citizens United. Or am I wrong about that?

If things had gone differently today, would you post, "OK, social justice people; what's the deal here? There was an arrest, a trail, an acquittal. Do we respect that?" The answer would be no you wouldn't. You and your ilk would right now be defending the destruction of Twin Cities. You cannot reasonably demand that people respect the system that produced a conviction while simultaneously claiming that said system is intrinsically racist and has white supremacy woven into its very fabric. We respect the verdict precisely because it was not produced by a systemically flawed system. It is a system that falls prey to human mistakes, much like law enforcement. Not systemically flawed, but not infallible or flawless, either.   
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 21, 2021, 12:16:37 AM
Peter writes:
If things had gone differently today, would you post, "OK, social justice people; what's the deal here? There was an arrest, a trail, an acquittal. Do we respect that?" The answer would be no you wouldn't.
I comment:
No, I would not do that. I would respect thevdecision and take it as an increased reason why we should work harder for reform of our justice system. You stereotype unfairly what you think I would do.

Peter writes:
You and your ilk would right now be defending the destruction of Twin Cities.
I comment:
Again, I would not. And I got no ilk. But I would have some compassion for and understand those who might, had  that happened, turn a bit destructive.

Peter again:
You cannot reasonably demand that people respect the system that produced a conviction while simultaneously claiming that said system is intrinsically racist and has white supremacy woven into its very fabric. We respect the verdict precisely because it was not produced by a systemically flawed system. It is a system that falls prey to human mistakes, much like law enforcement. Not systemically flawed, but not infallible or flawless, either.   
Me:
Ye gods and little fishes, Peter! How desperate are you? Can you not see the difference between saying the system is flawed, and at the same time noting that in this case perhaps it worked? Don’t you see that so much of the shock and joy that the system worked this time is precisely because people see that most of the time the system does not work? ‘Do you not hear those people?
But I suspect we are going nowhere here. Let it go.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 21, 2021, 09:15:40 AM
Peter writes:
If things had gone differently today, would you post, "OK, social justice people; what's the deal here? There was an arrest, a trail, an acquittal. Do we respect that?" The answer would be no you wouldn't.
I comment:
No, I would not do that. I would respect thevdecision and take it as an increased reason why we should work harder for reform of our justice system. You stereotype unfairly what you think I would do.

Peter writes:
You and your ilk would right now be defending the destruction of Twin Cities.
I comment:
Again, I would not. And I got no ilk. But I would have some compassion for and understand those who might, had  that happened, turn a bit destructive.

Peter again:
You cannot reasonably demand that people respect the system that produced a conviction while simultaneously claiming that said system is intrinsically racist and has white supremacy woven into its very fabric. We respect the verdict precisely because it was not produced by a systemically flawed system. It is a system that falls prey to human mistakes, much like law enforcement. Not systemically flawed, but not infallible or flawless, either.   
Me:
Ye gods and little fishes, Peter! How desperate are you? Can you not see the difference between saying the system is flawed, and at the same time noting that in this case perhaps it worked? Don’t you see that so much of the shock and joy that the system worked this time is precisely because people see that most of the time the system does not work? ‘Do you not hear those people?
But I suspect we are going nowhere here. Let it go.
Again, we're at the level of assumption, and your preemptive condemnation of the justice system as systemically racist leads you to pervert justice. You went into it already thinking you already knew what the only correct result of the trial should be. The outcome was a test of whether the system worked properly to achieve your predetermined result, not a test of whether or not a defendant was guilty and if so, of what charge. You do this because you don't think of Chauvin, you think of "the police." And you don't think of Floyd but of "black males" or "the African American community."

Because I don't think in terms of systemic racism and saw no evidence of race having anything to do with what happened, I simply look at the facts of the case, not the larger sociological forces represented by the main players. And in this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on different charges. Unlike you, I do not think he was a monster or had any intent to kill anyone.   
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 21, 2021, 09:36:10 AM
Perhaps it's the chaplain in me, coupled with a pastoral career that inevitably has involved jail and prison visits over the years (one, in fact, just last week of a young man I confirmed and may face prison time).  But as the verdict was handled down yesterday I looked at Chauvin and wondered what was going on in his mind and heart.  Media characterized him as basically unresponsive, but the darting eyes told a different story to me. What do we know about him? How is he processing this? And more important to me, is where might he be in terms of faith? 

He faces the possibility of decades in prison.  An appeal will be made, but he will certainly serve time, and I am guessing a lot of it.  His wife divorced him after George Floyd's death.  She was a Hmong refugee who moved to Thailand and later to the US in the late 70s when she was very young.  He has no children.  Those who knew him did not see him as a 'monster,' a word I have heard used of him. Like all people his past was varied.  He was a 19-year veteran of the department, a decorated law enforcement officer who also faced complaints and discipline.  People who knew him had mixed reactions, but it seemed little different than many might receive from those who know them.  His ex-wife once described him as a good and polite man. Given her ethnic background one has to wonder just how racist he should be considered. 

I realize that Chauvin has become the face of racism in law enforcement and is now the man to hate.  But the pastor in me hopes that someone will minister to him in jail and prison.  I think of the LCMS pastor/chaplain who ministered to Nazi war criminals facing justice at Nuremberg (Henry Gereke).  I read the book about his work at the time and was surprised how some turned hatefully on Chaplain Gereke.  He quietly saved those hate-filled letters, tucking them into the back recesses of his desk.  He understood that his calling was to share the Gospel with all people, even those the world left behind in disgust and hatred. 

I hope that Christians are praying for Derek Chauvin.  I am not excusing his actions and recognize and respect the decisions handed down yesterday.  But while his conviction and imprisonment may send a message in one direction, Christians also have a responsibility to remember the others whose sins caused great harm and damage, but are people for whom Christ also died, and for whose repentance we hope and pray.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 21, 2021, 09:40:01 AM
You seem to know quite a lot about what I think. And you are wrong on almost every point.
But it serves your purpose to believe I think certain ways.
I don’t think the officer had any intent to kill anyone, and that was not part of the trial.
And if you refuse to see that racism, whether systemic or incidental, had something to do with the situation, then I really don’t know what to say to you. Do you reject all the statistics that have been collected regarding interactions between African-Americans and the police? Do you reject all the comparisons of those interactions with similar inter-actions between police and white Americans? What about the differentials in sentencing?
You have not quite gone this far, Peter, but the more comments you make, the more I am seeing evidence of a certain kind of white nationalism.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on April 21, 2021, 09:41:17 AM
Thank you Don for your good words and for the encouragement to be praying, to be fulfilling our pastoral roles with concern for people, not concern for what people think of our roles.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 21, 2021, 09:45:13 AM
Ministering to individuals is important and is the right thing to do. But if it distracts us from looking at the broader situation, that ain’t good.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 21, 2021, 09:48:30 AM
So the spiritual well-being of a convicted person is of lesser importance than debating the extent of systemic racism? Just got to make sure my priorities are not all mixed up.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: John_Hannah on April 21, 2021, 09:49:33 AM
One Christian theologian's reflection with his 13 year old son:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/opinion/derek-chauvin-verdict-floyd.html
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on April 21, 2021, 10:10:01 AM
So the spiritual well-being of a convicted person is of lesser importance than debating the extent of systemic racism? Just got to make sure my priorities are not all mixed up.

As one who is the proud recipient of a pass from Charles Austin...I think you are catching on. 

Jeremy
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dan Fienen on April 21, 2021, 10:32:03 AM
For what it’s worth (admittedly not much), in my opinion based on what I saw in the news of the evidence presented at the trial the verdict was sound and warranted. Unlike many, I do not pretend to have great insight into the mind and motivations of former Officer Derek Chauvin. To simply call his actions racist would be, I believe, overly simplistic. There was no evidence that Chauvin set out that day to find some Black man to kill simply because he was Black. Nor was racism or American policing or the American justice system on trial here, much as some wanted to make it that. This was an individual in a particular public office who did certain things in a situation in which another individual died. How all those pieces fit together and establishing causal links among them was what the trial was about.

To simplify this into a racist cop monster or even a racist police institution at war with Blacks would miss an opportunity to help discover the factors that would lead a relatively good cop and relatively good person, as Chauvin apparently was, to act in the manner that he did. Years of policing, especially in large cities, can have an effect on people that I suspect in some ways is similar to that of soldiers who spend a long time in an active war zone. We need to begin to understand these factors so that with perhaps improved training and monitoring we can help prevent these tragedies in the future. There was nothing presented that I heard of to suggest that Derek Chauvin was a White Nationalist or White Supremacist. According to much of the testimony and the verdict what he did was clearly wrong. But to simply write it off as racism or the result of a racist nation or racist police institution may serve an ideological purpose but do little to get at the root of some of these tragedies.

There is a distinct tendency to see these tragedies simply in terms of Black and White. Life is messier than that.

Police reform is necessary, but to be effective reform needs to be more than analyzing every situation only in terms of racism. Racism is, no doubt, at times part of the mix, but not the entire mix.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: David Garner on April 21, 2021, 10:38:47 AM
As I followed the trial in the news, it seemed to me that the verdict as reached was warranted by the evidence. What motivated Chauvin to act as he did was not clear to me. Whatever his motivation, it seems apparent that Chauvin continued to apply force to Floyd after he was restrained.

Agree.  I worried in the beginning they had overcharged him, but they proved their case, and well.  The testimony of Dr. Rich was devastating, and powerful.  Combined with the video, it pretty much assured a conviction.

The defense did not have a lot to work with.  They provided him a good defense, but the best attorney in the world cannot change the facts of a case.  The defense expert was not qualified to give the opinions he tried to give, a point that was hammered home during his cross.  Whether that is because they hired the wrong expert or they couldn't find a qualified expert to give the opinions they needed is open to question.  I suspect the latter, but we will never know that.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 21, 2021, 10:58:37 AM
You seem to know quite a lot about what I think. And you are wrong on almost every point.
But it serves your purpose to believe I think certain ways.
I don’t think the officer had any intent to kill anyone, and that was not part of the trial.
And if you refuse to see that racism, whether systemic or incidental, had something to do with the situation, then I really don’t know what to say to you. Do you reject all the statistics that have been collected regarding interactions between African-Americans and the police? Do you reject all the comparisons of those interactions with similar inter-actions between police and white Americans? What about the differentials in sentencing?
You have not quite gone this far, Peter, but the more comments you make, the more I am seeing evidence of a certain kind of white nationalism.
What is it that makes you think racism had something to do with this situation? Nothing other than the assumption that if a white person mistreats a black person, it is because of skin color. The fact that people of all races mistreat each other quite regularly doesn't weigh into it for you. In this case, your default is that if racism could possibly explain it, we should assume racism played a role. But that is still an assumption. You and the antiracist movement constantly demand that people prove a negative. The starting point is that they are racist until they prove otherwise. My starting point is to assume they are not racist until they prove otherwise. And the only way to prove you are not a racist is to admit to having been one and repented, then prove you've moved past it by decrying it somewhere else. Thus, the constant rush to find racism everywhere-- in math and physics, in grammar, in schedules and clocks, everywhere. It is an effort to establish that the people doing the decrying are on the good side.

That isn't how Christians ought to proceed. I have absolutely no reason to believe Chauvin was a racist, and it is uncharitable in the extreme to assume he was. He obviously had his problems and did a terrible thing. I did not know before today that he had married a Hmong woman, but that would also seem to argue against his having some sort of white supremacy outlook. I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.

You see hints of white nationalism in my posts because you have trained your eyes to see it everywhere you look, again, until the people prove to you that they aren't white nationalists, which they can only do by joining the antiracist mob. That such a lens leads you to absurd conclusions doesn't deter you. If you think there are hints of white nationalism in my posts, you have been brainwashed or are simply a fool.

The actual statistics, by the way, support my point of view. The media pick and choose which event to hold up as typical and which to ignore to promote your point of view. You can see this at work, for example, when there is a shooting and media jump all over it thinking it was some white nationalists militia member. Then they find out the shooter was nothing of the kind and the story dies. 
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dan Fienen on April 21, 2021, 11:11:13 AM
Another tragedy of this whole episode is that we have an opportunity here to begin to come together as a nation and work together to heal wounds, look to ways to improve and reform our systems to see that justice was done. But it seems that many people would rather view this as an exercise of power to impose one view over everyone else.
What was the purpose of the trial? In theory, trials are supposed to be a place and occasion to lay out and sort through the evidence, try to connect the dots and have the jurors come to a conclusion as to what happened and specifically if the defendant was at fault and of what. In this case many commentators had their minds made up ahead of time (not that unusual) and the trial was a test of whether or not the judicial system could get it right and agree with them.
More than that, this had become an exercise of mob justice. Before the case ever opened in the court room, the mob had tried Chauvin and found him guilty, and threatened violence (well actually committed violence) to ensure that the court came to their conclusion, i. e. the right conclusion.
So some viewed the guilty verdict not as the result of the judicial process but bowing to threat.
KYRIE ELEISON.  What does it mean?  There are issues here. Lord have mercy.
 
It means the jurors were afraid for their safety and their homes and their families.
Even Pr. Austin put little faith in the judicial process.

Peter writes: If things had gone differently today, would you post, "OK, social justice people; what's the deal here? There was an arrest, a trail, an acquittal. Do we respect that?" The answer would be no you wouldn't.

I comment: No, I would not do that. I would respect the decision and take it as an increased reason why we should work harder for reform of our justice system. You stereotype unfairly what you think I would do.


Despite saying that he would respect the decision, if it had not gone the way he had decided it should go, he would have decided not that his judgment of the case had been wrong but that further reform was necessary to ensure that future cases would be decided “correctly.”
What conclusions should we draw from this? Some from both sides seem to want to draw the conclusion that the way to get matters of guilt and innocence decided is to decide as a group what the conclusion should be, often more on the color of the skin of those involved than the evidence, and commit violence with threats of further violence until the decision is made our way.

Rather than seeing that this trial and verdict gives hope that we can come together as a nation, seek justice, and betterment for all, many seem to want to use this as success for mob justice, that there is the power we need at the point of the riot.

Do we need the reminder that in another era, mob justice did not do well by some who seem to want to perpetuate it today?


Peter writes:You and your ilk would right now be defending the destruction of Twin Cities.

I comment: Again, I would not. And I got no ilk. But I would have some compassion for and understand those who might, had that happened, turn a bit destructive.
Might we have some compassion for and understanding of those who have suffered destruction of their property and livelihoods, suffered injury and even death at the hands of rioters this summer?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 21, 2021, 11:19:04 AM
This story and the shooting that took place recently, not to mention other stories of the deaths of black people at the hands of police, keep the issue of police and racism and "systemic racism" front and center in the news. One can certainly make an argument for systemic racism from statistics alone, showing a higher percentage of black people arrested, incarcerated and killed at the hands of law enforcement. One such study was done out of Harvard: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/blacks-whites-police-deaths-disparity/ (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/blacks-whites-police-deaths-disparity/)

However, the more difficult argument, it seems to me, is motive and intent.  Do the departments foster within themselves racist attitudes?  Do many of the officers? Are there racist attitudes prevalent in the upper ranks?  What about departments led by Blacks where Blacks are arrested and/or shot at what is perceived to be higher than normal rates? Are there studies that demonstrate any of this in a conclusive and convincing way?

Or are these attitudes largely assumed?  Did Derek Chauvin's career arrests and other official acts on the street involve a disproportionate amount of Blacks vs. Whites?  I haven't heard.

Are there other factors that cause the seeming racial disparity in arrests and deaths? Have these been studied?  Or are we allowed to even bring them up? 

My concern, which has been voiced elsewhere here, is that we have a White officer responsible for killing a Black person and racist attitudes and intent are immediately assumed because of the White-Black contrast.  We would not do that the other way around because in similar fashion we would assume that Black officers are not racially biased against White criminals. 

It has become fashionable of late to assume that there is built-in racism within the White community in general.  Once that is assumed certain conclusions automatically follow. 
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 21, 2021, 11:21:19 AM
... I simply look at the facts of the case, not the larger sociological forces represented by the main players. And in this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on different charges. Unlike you, I do not think he was a monster or had any intent to kill anyone.

Well, it certainly has been a cold spring! Hell hath frozen over again. For the most part, in this thread I have to go with Charles as to the trial itself, not necessarily the social aspects of the case. Speaking of assumptions, yours are erroneous, Peter, and manifest an ignorance of the law and the judicial system. A few examples:

As Charles has told you at least once, Chauvin was not charged with intentional murder. He was charged with unintentional murder. So, the State did not have to show that he had an intent to kill.

You also manifest a misunderstanding of the legal definition of "depraved heart." It does not require showing that the defendant is a monster. So, the jury did not find that Chauvin is "a monster of depraved heart."

As it is, the adrenaline that comes from resisting arrest coupled with his heart condition and massive amounts of drugs in his system likely would have killed [Floyd] even if Chauvin had left him in the back seat of the car.

So what? The State had to prove that Chauvin's actions were a "substantial" cause of death.

I can't prove it, but I can say that there is at least reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd.

Well, the burden was on the State to prove it. A jury of 12 citizens who actually heard all of the evidence determined that the State did prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Peter, above you wrote:  "The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent. Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case."

Your words are pure wisdom!

You both demean the criminal justice system. I know Peter Cahill. He was a fine practicing lawyer and is an excellent judge. The trial was about justice, holding defendants accountable for their criminal actions, and it appears that justice was served. As Mr. Garner stated, Chauvin had a good defense lawyer (Although, given my experience trying criminal cases as a defense attorney, I believe that a closing argument should never go longer than an hour,) and the prosecution did an excellent job. That the media and some commentators used the trial to serve other purposes does not detract from the fact that the trial was about Floyd and Chauvin's actions that caused his death. The system worked.

I think there will be an appeal, and Chauvin will have at least a fighting chance of acquittal on the most serious charge.

I'm not sure how that  works. An appellate court does not "acquit" anyone. They can overturn a verdict, but the prosecution has the right to retry the defendant, although they must do so in light of whatever issues the appeals court relied upon in overturning the conviction.

Of course, there will be an appeal, and the appellate court could overturn the verdict due to publicity, a failure to sequester, and the like. But an appellate court rarely attempts to second-guess the triers of fact who heard all the evidence, saw the demeanor of witnesses, etc.

I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.

Again, the 12 who actually heard all of the evidence and were actually able to assess the facts determined otherwise. And when you get your law degree and become a prosecutor, you will be able to charge defendants as you see fit.

But, thank God that we live in a country where folks can opine and pop off about things they know little or nothing about on online boards like this one, in public, and in the media.

I realize that it's CNN, but the below link gives a very good explanation of charges, terms, etc as addressed above.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/us/derek-chauvin-charges-explain/index.html
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 21, 2021, 11:21:34 AM
Peter continues:
What is it that makes you think racism had something to do with this situation? Nothing other than the assumption that if a white person mistreats a black person, it is because of skin color.
I comment:
Nope, that’s not the deal, but never mind.

Peter:
The fact that people of all races mistreat each other quite regularly doesn't weigh into it for you. In this case, your default is that if racism could possibly explain it, we should assume racism played a role. But that is still an assumption. You and the antiracist movement constantly demand that people prove a negative.
Me:
Yes, you have to watch out for that terrible “antiracist movement.” The growing “white supremacist” movement, however, is just good ol’ Amurricans lovin' the flag.

Peter:
I have absolutely no reason to believe Chauvin was a racist, and it is uncharitable in the extreme to assume he was. He obviously had his problems and did a terrible thing.
Me:
See above. I do not think racism was a factor in the trial. But in the grander picture….

Peter:
I did not know before today that he had married a Hmong woman, but that would also seem to argue against his having some sort of white supremacy outlook.
Me:
And last year they divorced, according to reports, in an effort to protect their assets, should he be convicted.

Peter:
I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.
Me:
And you, from your distance, your separation from any of the issues of the people or facts of the case or the court testimony, think we should be moved by how you think he should have been charged? Really?

Peter:
You see hints of white nationalism in my posts because you have trained your eyes to see it everywhere you look, again, until the people prove to you that they aren't white nationalists, which they can only do by joining the antiracist mob.
Me:
And there you go again. Assuming you know I look at things. And there is interesting terminology in your quick-response to the situation – “the antiracist mob.” How about those in political office, civic leadership, churches and now in the law enforcement community who are not a “mob”, but concerned about the systemic racism among us?

Peter:
That such a lens leads you to absurd conclusions doesn't deter you. If you think there are hints of white nationalism in my posts, you have been brainwashed or are simply a fool.
Me:
If you were to read Rising Out of Hatred: The Awakening of a Former White Nationalist, by Eli Saslow, you would learn how Derek (yes, that’s the right name) Black, godson of Ku Klux Clan leader David Duke, son of the top leader of the white nationalist movement in this country and the heir apparent to leadership of that movement was led out of that movement by education, experience and careful thinking, you might – probably not, but might – recognize certain threads of that movement in your rhetoric and positions.
Reading that book and Caste by Isabelle Wilkerson, might - probably not, but might - teach you something.

Peter:
The actual statistics, by the way, support my point of view.
Me:
I’ll call a major BS on that one.

Peter:
The media pick and choose which event to hold up as typical and which to ignore to promote your point of view. You can see this at work, for example, when there is a shooting and media jump all over it thinking it was some white nationalists militia member. Then they find out the shooter was nothing of the kind and the story dies.
Me:
But not every story dies, although many of the people in the stories do. Compare arrests, convictions, sentencings, pardons, errors in convictions and related statistics. Or don’t. Others will and I have hopes that changes will be made.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on April 21, 2021, 11:28:58 AM
David or Don, I have a question that I think you can answer...

Sentencing for Derek Chauvin will take place sometime in June.  Where is Mr. Chauvin in the meantime?  Does he remain in custody of the sheriff's department?  Is he allowed to be at home until sentencing?  Is this one of those situations where Mr. So and So is sentenced to X years in prison minus time already served.  If he is in custody of the sheriff's department until the time of his sentencing, would this be considered the time already served?

Thanks.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 21, 2021, 11:30:33 AM
Just one comment on Pastor Fienen's one-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand missive. He writes:
Might we have some compassion for and understanding of those who have suffered destruction of their property and livelihoods, suffered injury and even death at the hands of rioters this summer?

I comment:
We might, if that is what actually happened and if it was truly great. Much damage is covered by insurance. I do not recall that anyone suffered death at the hands of the "rioters" last summer. And I think most injuries were inflicted by the police. (But you go ahead and find some.)
Again I say, again I say: I do not approve of destructive demonstrations or "rioting." But I do try to understand the massive and long-standing frustration of people in communities where, for years and years, they have suffered because they were poor, black, immigrant or presumed to be on the "wrong side" of the law.
To cite again the movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s seeking the right for women to vote. It could be said that virtually no progress was made until a major segment of the movement starting doing impolite things.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: David Garner on April 21, 2021, 11:36:25 AM
David or Don, I have a question that I think you can answer...

Sentencing for Derek Chauvin will take place sometime in June.  Where is Mr. Chauvin in the meantime?  Does he remain in custody of the sheriff's department?  Is he allowed to be at home until sentencing?  Is this one of those situations where Mr. So and So is sentenced to X years in prison minus time already served.  If he is in custody of the sheriff's department until the time of his sentencing, would this be considered the time already served?

Thanks.

Jeremy

He was remanded to the custody of the state at the time of the verdict yesterday.  He will receive time served for the months between now and his sentencing, and my best guess is he will be in a county facility until he is sentenced, at which point they will move him to a state prison.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 21, 2021, 11:43:53 AM
David or Don, I have a question that I think you can answer...

Sentencing for Derek Chauvin will take place sometime in June.  Where is Mr. Chauvin in the meantime?  Does he remain in custody of the sheriff's department?  Is he allowed to be at home until sentencing?  Is this one of those situations where Mr. So and So is sentenced to X years in prison minus time already served.  If he is in custody of the sheriff's department until the time of his sentencing, would this be considered the time already served?

Thanks.

Jeremy

He was remanded to the custody of the state at the time of the verdict yesterday.  He will receive time served for the months between now and his sentencing, and my best guess is he will be in a county facility until he is sentenced, at which point they will move him to a state prison.

Agreed. His bail was revoked, so he will remain in custody.

 "A criminal defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in custody “in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.” Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. (B). It makes no difference for concurrent jail credit purposes if time spent in custody is pretrial, served as sentenced time or related to other charges. State v. Morales, 532 N.W.2d 268, 270 (Minn.App. 1995). State v. Fritzke, 529 N.W.2d 859, 862 (Minn.App.1994)."

https://blogpendleton.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pendleton12-10-jail_credit_manual.pdf
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 21, 2021, 12:20:19 PM
... I simply look at the facts of the case, not the larger sociological forces represented by the main players. And in this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on different charges. Unlike you, I do not think he was a monster or had any intent to kill anyone.

Well, it certainly has been a cold spring! Hell hath frozen over again. For the most part, in this thread I have to go with Charles as to the trial itself, not necessarily the social aspects of the case. Speaking of assumptions, yours are erroneous, Peter, and manifest an ignorance of the law and the judicial system. A few examples:

As Charles has told you at least once, Chauvin was not charged with intentional murder. He was charged with unintentional murder. So, the State did not have to show that he had an intent to kill.

You also manifest a misunderstanding of the legal definition of "depraved heart." It does not require showing that the defendant is a monster. So, the jury did not find that Chauvin is "a monster of depraved heart."

As it is, the adrenaline that comes from resisting arrest coupled with his heart condition and massive amounts of drugs in his system likely would have killed [Floyd] even if Chauvin had left him in the back seat of the car.

So what? The State had to prove that Chauvin's actions were a "substantial" cause of death.

I can't prove it, but I can say that there is at least reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd.

Well, the burden was on the State to prove it. A jury of 12 citizens who actually heard all of the evidence determined that the State did prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Peter, above you wrote:  "The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent. Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case."

Your words are pure wisdom!

You both demean the criminal justice system. I know Peter Cahill. He was a fine practicing lawyer and is an excellent judge. The trial was about justice, holding defendants accountable for their criminal actions, and it appears that justice was served. As Mr. Garner stated, Chauvin had a good defense lawyer (Although, given my experience trying criminal cases as a defense attorney, I believe that a closing argument should never go longer than an hour,) and the prosecution did an excellent job. That the media and some commentators used the trial to serve other purposes does not detract from the fact that the trial was about Floyd and Chauvin's actions that caused his death. The system worked.

I think there will be an appeal, and Chauvin will have at least a fighting chance of acquittal on the most serious charge.

I'm not sure how that  works. An appellate court does not "acquit" anyone. They can overturn a verdict, but the prosecution has the right to retry the defendant, although they must do so in light of whatever issues the appeals court relied upon in overturning the conviction.

Of course, there will be an appeal, and the appellate court could overturn the verdict due to publicity, a failure to sequester, and the like. But an appellate court rarely attempts to second-guess the triers of fact who heard all the evidence, saw the demeanor of witnesses, etc.

I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.

Again, the 12 who actually heard all of the evidence and were actually able to assess the facts determined otherwise. And when you get your law degree and become a prosecutor, you will be able to charge defendants as you see fit.

But, thank God that we live in a country where folks can opine and pop off about things they know little or nothing about on online boards like this one, in public, and in the media.

I realize that it's CNN, but the below link gives a very good explanation of charges, terms, etc as addressed above.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/us/derek-chauvin-charges-explain/index.html
Simmer down, Don. Lawyers know the law like theologians know theology-- they disagree a lot, and even layman can have their opinions. There are plenty of lawyers who know a lot more about it than you (even given your credentials) who happen to agree with me that the more serious charges were a stretch. The "monster" terminology was not intended as a legal definition. It was a response to Charles's assertion in response to me that Chauvin was monster. I know that 12 jurors found him guilty, and if jury verdicts were infallible, that would end the matter definitively. But you know that they are not. If it were as cut and dried as you suggest and the system worked as well as you suggest, the trial would not be the subject of so much analysis everywhere in the media and there would have been no suspense as to the outcome.

When I said what the trial was about (and Tom agreed with me), I was talking about the trial as a topic of national conversation. I stand by my statement that if Floyd had been white we probably wouldn't even be aware the trial was happening. I didn't say the trial would have ended with a different verdict. Charles says that is because this sort of thing doesn't happen to white people, which is nonsense. We weren't demeaning the legal system. If anyone is demeaning the legal system it is those who say that this case was somehow exceptional for getting it right despite the racism woven into the system.

The "substantial cause of death" is an area where I think I disagree with jury. I've read/listened to several explanations of what the term means and how it applied in this case. Imagine this: lawyers who seemed to know a lot about the law-- perhaps even more about it than you-- were disagreeing with each other. Granted you are a lawyer and can use more precise legal terminology, but I don't think that invalidates the opinions layman who speak more generally.     
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 21, 2021, 12:38:25 PM
Peter writes;
Granted you are a lawyer and can use more precise legal terminology, but I don't think that invalidates the opinions layman who speak more generally.
I comment:
It most certainly does, or at least you must admit but what is expressed by the laymen  are “opinions,“ not necessarily an accurate assessment of the law.
I find it almost hilarious that a conservative Lutheran theologian would claim that his opinion of the law is as good as that of a lawyer’s.
What would you say, Peter, if one of your members contended that his or her opinion of the theology surrounding the sacrament were as valid as yours?
And there is now to be a justice department investigation into whether the police in our beloved city make excessive use of force a standard practice especially in certain situations. It has also been reported that there were at least 16 complaints about Chauvin using excessive force over his career.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on April 21, 2021, 01:01:53 PM
You seem to know quite a lot about what I think. And you are wrong on almost every point.
But it serves your purpose to believe I think certain ways.
I don’t think the officer had any intent to kill anyone, and that was not part of the trial.
And if you refuse to see that racism, whether systemic or incidental, had something to do with the situation, then I really don’t know what to say to you. Do you reject all the statistics that have been collected regarding interactions between African-Americans and the police? Do you reject all the comparisons of those interactions with similar inter-actions between police and white Americans? What about the differentials in sentencing?
You have not quite gone this far, Peter, but the more comments you make, the more I am seeing evidence of a certain kind of white nationalism.
What is it that makes you think racism had something to do with this situation? Nothing other than the assumption that if a white person mistreats a black person, it is because of skin color. The fact that people of all races mistreat each other quite regularly doesn't weigh into it for you. In this case, your default is that if racism could possibly explain it, we should assume racism played a role. But that is still an assumption. You and the antiracist movement constantly demand that people prove a negative. The starting point is that they are racist until they prove otherwise. My starting point is to assume they are not racist until they prove otherwise. And the only way to prove you are not a racist is to admit to having been one and repented, then prove you've moved past it by decrying it somewhere else. Thus, the constant rush to find racism everywhere-- in math and physics, in grammar, in schedules and clocks, everywhere. It is an effort to establish that the people doing the decrying are on the good side.

That isn't how Christians ought to proceed. I have absolutely no reason to believe Chauvin was a racist, and it is uncharitable in the extreme to assume he was. He obviously had his problems and did a terrible thing. I did not know before today that he had married a Hmong woman, but that would also seem to argue against his having some sort of white supremacy outlook. I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.

You see hints of white nationalism in my posts because you have trained your eyes to see it everywhere you look, again, until the people prove to you that they aren't white nationalists, which they can only do by joining the antiracist mob. That such a lens leads you to absurd conclusions doesn't deter you. If you think there are hints of white nationalism in my posts, you have been brainwashed or are simply a fool.

The actual statistics, by the way, support my point of view. The media pick and choose which event to hold up as typical and which to ignore to promote your point of view. You can see this at work, for example, when there is a shooting and media jump all over it thinking it was some white nationalists militia member. Then they find out the shooter was nothing of the kind and the story dies.


I think racism has something to do with the actions because I suppose (but can't prove,) that if George Floyd had been a white man, his treatment and the outcome of his arrest would have been different. This is based on my numerous friendly interactions with law enforcement and the numerous reports I've heard of the negative interactions between people of color and law enforcement. One example: a friend, a light-skinned Mexican-American talks about how he has been treated better by law enforcement officers than his brother, a darker-skinned Mexican-American.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: James S. Rustad on April 21, 2021, 01:05:32 PM
Just one comment on Pastor Fienen's one-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand missive. He writes:
Might we have some compassion for and understanding of those who have suffered destruction of their property and livelihoods, suffered injury and even death at the hands of rioters this summer?

I comment:
We might, if that is what actually happened and if it was truly great. Much damage is covered by insurance.

So damage doesn't count if it "is covered by insurance"?  If my house is burned by rioters, do I not suffer?  Am I not terrorized?

I do not recall that anyone suffered death at the hands of the "rioters" last summer. And I think most injuries were inflicted by the police. (But you go ahead and find some.)

Quote from: https://www.voanews.com/usa/death-toll-grows-national-protests
Death Toll Grows in National Protests
A federal law enforcement officer was providing security at the federal courthouse in Oakland during a protest when someone fired shots from a vehicle.
Dave Patrick Underwood, 53, died and another officer was critically injured in the shooting.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 21, 2021, 01:11:39 PM
I believe both the president and VP in their remarks following the verdict yesterday encouraged passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, passed in the House and now at the Senate.

A summary of the bill's contents is here in this pdf "fact sheet" provided by the government:
https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fact_sheet_for_justice_in_policing_2020.pdf (https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fact_sheet_for_justice_in_policing_2020.pdf)

Democrats are fully supportive of the bill, but Republicans have expressed concern over its provision changing qualified immunity. According to CBS News, they "argue that overhauling qualified immunity would harm law enforcement officers acting in good faith, as it would make it easier to pursue litigation against them."

It does open up a wider discussion of law enforcement today.  I work in a different area of emergency services, but I can see how this bill and other proposed actions could have an impact on future law enforcement recruitment and on how they carry out their work in highly dangerous and volatile situations.  If litigation against officers is made considerably easier, one wonders how this might dampen or even discourage responses and impact the safety of others.  As with the massive reallocation of funds occurring in some metro areas, as well as the desire to shift certain responsibilities to non-law enforcement, it will be interesting, if implemented, how crime rates and other factors pan out. 

For me, I think hanging out in the country a bit longer is desirable....
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Norman Teigen on April 21, 2021, 01:11:49 PM
The Mississippi River is a geographic thread that ties together Dred Scott and George Floyd.  In St. Louis, the United States Supreme Court said that Dred Scott was not a legal person, that as a black man he wasn't entitled to the full protection of law. In Minneapolis,  the Chauvin v. State of Minnesota trial  affirmed that a black man did have importance, that black lives do matter, that George Floyd, as a human being, mattered.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 21, 2021, 01:15:57 PM
You seem to know quite a lot about what I think. And you are wrong on almost every point.
But it serves your purpose to believe I think certain ways.
I don’t think the officer had any intent to kill anyone, and that was not part of the trial.
And if you refuse to see that racism, whether systemic or incidental, had something to do with the situation, then I really don’t know what to say to you. Do you reject all the statistics that have been collected regarding interactions between African-Americans and the police? Do you reject all the comparisons of those interactions with similar inter-actions between police and white Americans? What about the differentials in sentencing?
You have not quite gone this far, Peter, but the more comments you make, the more I am seeing evidence of a certain kind of white nationalism.
What is it that makes you think racism had something to do with this situation? Nothing other than the assumption that if a white person mistreats a black person, it is because of skin color. The fact that people of all races mistreat each other quite regularly doesn't weigh into it for you. In this case, your default is that if racism could possibly explain it, we should assume racism played a role. But that is still an assumption. You and the antiracist movement constantly demand that people prove a negative. The starting point is that they are racist until they prove otherwise. My starting point is to assume they are not racist until they prove otherwise. And the only way to prove you are not a racist is to admit to having been one and repented, then prove you've moved past it by decrying it somewhere else. Thus, the constant rush to find racism everywhere-- in math and physics, in grammar, in schedules and clocks, everywhere. It is an effort to establish that the people doing the decrying are on the good side.

That isn't how Christians ought to proceed. I have absolutely no reason to believe Chauvin was a racist, and it is uncharitable in the extreme to assume he was. He obviously had his problems and did a terrible thing. I did not know before today that he had married a Hmong woman, but that would also seem to argue against his having some sort of white supremacy outlook. I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.

You see hints of white nationalism in my posts because you have trained your eyes to see it everywhere you look, again, until the people prove to you that they aren't white nationalists, which they can only do by joining the antiracist mob. That such a lens leads you to absurd conclusions doesn't deter you. If you think there are hints of white nationalism in my posts, you have been brainwashed or are simply a fool.

The actual statistics, by the way, support my point of view. The media pick and choose which event to hold up as typical and which to ignore to promote your point of view. You can see this at work, for example, when there is a shooting and media jump all over it thinking it was some white nationalists militia member. Then they find out the shooter was nothing of the kind and the story dies.


I think racism has something to do with the actions because I suppose (but can't prove,) that if George Floyd had been a white man, his treatment and the outcome of his arrest would have been different. This is based on my numerous friendly interactions with law enforcement and the numerous reports I've heard of the negative interactions between people of color and law enforcement. One example: a friend, a light-skinned Mexican-American talks about how he has been treated better by law enforcement officers than his brother, a darker-skinned Mexican-American.

It is difficult to prove racism based on personal anecdotal evidence.  It may, indeed, be present, but whether it is inherently "systemic" throughout law enforcement and the judicial system is a question that needs to be answered by actual studies. 
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 21, 2021, 01:38:58 PM
David or Don, I have a question that I think you can answer...

Sentencing for Derek Chauvin will take place sometime in June.  Where is Mr. Chauvin in the meantime?  Does he remain in custody of the sheriff's department?  Is he allowed to be at home until sentencing?  Is this one of those situations where Mr. So and So is sentenced to X years in prison minus time already served.  If he is in custody of the sheriff's department until the time of his sentencing, would this be considered the time already served?

Thanks.

Jeremy

He was remanded to the custody of the state at the time of the verdict yesterday.  He will receive time served for the months between now and his sentencing, and my best guess is he will be in a county facility until he is sentenced, at which point they will move him to a state prison.

FOX News reports:

“The Minnesota Department of Corrections said Tuesday night that Chauvin was at the state's maximum-security prison in Oak Park Heights, due to an arrangement with the county sheriff and the Department of Corrections. That's the same prison where Chauvin was moved after his arrest for security reasons.”
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 21, 2021, 01:40:43 PM
Peter writes;
Granted you are a lawyer and can use more precise legal terminology, but I don't think that invalidates the opinions layman who speak more generally.
I comment:
It most certainly does, or at least you must admit but what is expressed by the laymen  are “opinions,“ not necessarily an accurate assessment of the law.
I find it almost hilarious that a conservative Lutheran theologian would claim that his opinion of the law is as good as that of a lawyer’s.
What would you say, Peter, if one of your members contended that his or her opinion of the theology surrounding the sacrament were as valid as yours?
And there is now to be a justice department investigation into whether the police in our beloved city make excessive use of force a standard practice especially in certain situations. It has also been reported that there were at least 16 complaints about Chauvin using excessive force over his career.
When did I say my opinion was as good as a lawyer's? I said lawyers differ in their opinions, the point being that every opinion is in disagreement with at least some lawyers just as every theological opinion disagrees with at least some theologians. You seem to be agreeing with me while being struck with hilarity about how wrong I am.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dan Fienen on April 21, 2021, 02:02:32 PM
I think racism has something to do with the actions because I suppose (but can't prove,) that if George Floyd had been a white man, his treatment and the outcome of his arrest would have been different. This is based on my numerous friendly interactions with law enforcement and the numerous reports I've heard of the negative interactions between people of color and law enforcement. One example: a friend, a light-skinned Mexican-American talks about how he has been treated better by law enforcement officers than his brother, a darker-skinned Mexican-American.
You argue from the specific to the general and then back from the general to the specific, which does not always hold true. You cite the experience of your friend and his brother and their experiences in, I presume, Arizona, not Minnesota. Is the only difference between the brothers the color of their skin or do they respond to law enforcement differently which could account for some of the difference in their interactions with the law. Then you generalize from their specific experiences in their specific locales to a generalized observation that police interactions with people are conditioned by their race. From that observation you then decide that race must have been involved in the incident with Officer Chauvin and George Floyd, because, well, White Officers always treat Black suspects badly.


Even if it could be established with more than anecdotal evidence that on the average, White Officers tend to treat Blacks more poorly than Whites, that does not establish that it always happens that way. Even if it can be established that something generally happens in a particular way, that does not determine that in every case it does. Generally speaking, in almost all cases, when people buy a lottery ticket, they do not win the big prize. By your generalization then it would follow that nobody ever wins the big prize. But they do. Similarly, your generalization drawn from anecdotal evidence without other evidence does not establish that Chauvin's actions were racially motivated.


But conviction by generalization is must easier and support prejudices more readily than actually examining what happened in a particular case.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: David Garner on April 21, 2021, 03:57:45 PM
David or Don, I have a question that I think you can answer...

Sentencing for Derek Chauvin will take place sometime in June.  Where is Mr. Chauvin in the meantime?  Does he remain in custody of the sheriff's department?  Is he allowed to be at home until sentencing?  Is this one of those situations where Mr. So and So is sentenced to X years in prison minus time already served.  If he is in custody of the sheriff's department until the time of his sentencing, would this be considered the time already served?

Thanks.

Jeremy

He was remanded to the custody of the state at the time of the verdict yesterday.  He will receive time served for the months between now and his sentencing, and my best guess is he will be in a county facility until he is sentenced, at which point they will move him to a state prison.

FOX News reports:

“The Minnesota Department of Corrections said Tuesday night that Chauvin was at the state's maximum-security prison in Oak Park Heights, due to an arrangement with the county sheriff and the Department of Corrections. That's the same prison where Chauvin was moved after his arrest for security reasons.”

I didn’t consider what a security risk he is. That makes sense.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 21, 2021, 04:06:38 PM
David or Don, I have a question that I think you can answer...

Sentencing for Derek Chauvin will take place sometime in June.  Where is Mr. Chauvin in the meantime?  Does he remain in custody of the sheriff's department?  Is he allowed to be at home until sentencing?  Is this one of those situations where Mr. So and So is sentenced to X years in prison minus time already served.  If he is in custody of the sheriff's department until the time of his sentencing, would this be considered the time already served?

Thanks.

Jeremy

He was remanded to the custody of the state at the time of the verdict yesterday.  He will receive time served for the months between now and his sentencing, and my best guess is he will be in a county facility until he is sentenced, at which point they will move him to a state prison.

FOX News reports:

“The Minnesota Department of Corrections said Tuesday night that Chauvin was at the state's maximum-security prison in Oak Park Heights, due to an arrangement with the county sheriff and the Department of Corrections. That's the same prison where Chauvin was moved after his arrest for security reasons.”

I didn’t consider what a security risk he is. That makes sense.

Yeah, I'd forgotten that he was held in max-security prior to trial as  well.

A colleague, a criminal defense lawyer, wryly quipped that if Chauvin had been found not guilty, the bounty on him on the street would have been about $100,000. Now, going to prison, the bounty will be a carton of cigarettes.   :(
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dave Benke on April 21, 2021, 04:23:31 PM
Peter writes:
The big disconnect between the "sides" of this case seems to divide those who see it in individual terms and those who see it in larger scale, group terms.
I comment:
Then you aren't listening to the members of the Floyd family and his friends. He is the individual. The fact that others - such as you - also see it as "identity politics" is quite a different matter.

Peter:
The former tend to have some measure of sympathy for the officer. They also tend to see Floyd as at least partly to blame for his condition, having filled his own lungs with a lethal dose of fentanyl and resisted arrest. The latter tend to have no sympathy for the defendant and to see Floyd as purely an innocent victim.
Me:
Are you suggesting that it's ok to kneel on a physically impaired person? No one is totally "innocent," but at the time that deadly force was applied to someone only suspected of a relatively minor offense. Your remark comes close to the comments excusing rape or attempted rape because a woman dressed a certain way.

Peter:
They seem to view the case in terms of the police generally vs. the African-American community generally rather than an individual officer and an individual victim. The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent.
Me:
Didn't watch much of the trial, did you?

Peter:
Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case.
Me:
As has been shown time again, something like that would probably never happen to a white person.

Peter:
I reject group identity politics and critical race theory, so I find myself sympathizing with a plight of the defendant as well as the victim in different ways. I don't think Chauvin acted with malice or intent to kill, nor do I think it was a racially motivated event.
Me:
Read the charges, read the law. With some of the charges "acting with malice or intent to kill" or motivated by race is not necessary. But the case upheld in court indicates that the officer's intent was indeed malicious.

Peter:
While he no doubt handled it terribly, a charge of excessive use of force and/or police misconduct along with involuntary manslaughter would seem to have fit what happened. Maybe I'm wrong and Chauvin arrived on the scene wanting Floyd dead. Or maybe he knew he was killing him and didn't care. But I doubt it.
Me:
You doubt it because you reject the existence of systematic racism, especially in law enforcement, present in our society. The prosecution made the case that he didn't care what was happening to the man under his knee.

Peter:
I think he is being painted as a monster because of the confluence of the horrible optics of the video fitting the perfectly with a sociological agenda.
Me:
Whew. At least you agree that it looked bad. Chauvin was convicted of causing Floyd's death "while committing or attempting to commit a related felony, in this case third-degree assault." That's sometimes called "felony murder."
And the officer was convicted of third-degree murder, where the jury believed the evidence showed him causing death during an act that was "eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."
The officer was a trained, veteran policeman who supposedly knew something about the use of force, even the felonious used of force and what constituted murder and lack of "regard for human life."
So in this incident, even if he had recently petted a puppy or helped an old lady across the street, the officer was indeed a monster.
We disagree at the basic level of assumptions. "More equitable justice" was neither plaintiff nor defendant here. Your whole take on it has been that he was clearly guilty and the only question was whether the system was too racist to convict him. In a way, this parallels the debate of "death from Covid" vs. "death with Covid." Floyd had Covid at the time. He died with it, not from it, at least not for the most part. He also had an officer kneeling on him (not cutting off his windpipe) at the time. He died with that, too, not from it, at least not for the most part. The experts refused to answer the question of whether Floyd would have died anyone without any police action taken on the grounds that they don't deal in what-ifs. But they did admit that if they'd found Floyd later, the lack of any signs of injury in his neck/throat coupled with the lethal level of fentanyl in his lungs would have made it a fairly straightforward finding of overdose as the cause of death. As it is, the adrenaline that comes from resisting arrest coupled with his heart condition and massive amounts of drugs in his system likely would have killed him even if Chauvin had left him in the back seat of the car. I can't prove it, but I can say that there is at least reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd.

It comes far too easily to you to think of people as depraved monsters. I don't know Chauvin or much about him, but I very much doubt he is a monster of depraved heart. You and the jury disagree. He'll likely be in jail a long time. I think far lesser charges would have better reflected the real crime of misconduct/brutality.

Regarding the sentence in bold print:
a) the jury determined otherwise
b) In the circle of friends, colleagues, relatives and acquaintances virtual and real in which I travel, you are the only person I know to date who holds the opinion that there is "reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd." 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: mariemeyer on April 21, 2021, 04:42:41 PM
I would encourage everyone who posts on the ALPB Forum to follow up on Pr. John Hannah's reference to Esau McCaulley's op ed in today's New York Times.  Professor Esau McCaulley  is a black assistant professor of the New Testament at Wheaton College. In case anyone failed to follow up on John Hannah's post, I have repeated it because  I am deeply troubled by posts that persist in denying the systemic racism that exists in our nation.  IMO, they reflect an intentional inability to walk in the shoes of fellow citizens who are black or brown.   

Please, take time to read the article to which John Hannah referred.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/opinion/derek-chauvin-verdict-floyd.html

I offer a brief quote, " I told my son the story of Adam Toledo's death as I drove him to baseball practice. It slipped from my lips unexpectedly. The Gospel singer Kirk Franklin was playing in the background, and we sat in silence as the choir sang the  the glories of God. In that moment, we were just not father and son but a Black boy and a Black man trying to make some sense of the task of living that stretched out before  us...

"When I could not wait any longer, I asked him, 'What are you thinking?'  He told me sounding somber and somewhat older, 'I want to do some good in the world, to make it better.'  That's it, I thought. That pain never breaks us, We push forward.

 "At some point,  I will sit down with my son and tell him that justice has been served in the Chauvin trial. But I am not sure the playfulness in his voice will immediately return. He has experienced something that has changed him.

"The point eventually comes for all black boys and girls - the moment when the monster reveals itself and the shape of the fight becomes clear. I pray the resolve he displayed during our car ride will remain."

Marie Meyer


Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 21, 2021, 04:44:11 PM
As for a) really? I hadn’t heard.

Concerning b) The facts were presented that the kneeling didn’t cut off Floyd’s breathing or damage his neck or throat, that he already said he couldn’t breathe even when sitting in the car, that his Fentanyl level would be considered lethal in many cases, and there were other drugs to complicate matters, that he had a serious heart condition, and was involved in an adrenaline producing incident. I think a reasonable person might conclude he didn’t die because of being knelt on for so long. Mind you, I’m not saying he didn’t die because of that. I’m just saying a reasonable person could doubt that Chauvin killed him. And yes, I’m aware the jury disagreed. But there were medical experts who were asked as much, and they refused to speculate. So it isn’t as though the idea is so outlandish that no lawyer thought to pursue it.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 21, 2021, 04:49:07 PM
A given device only gets a handful of NYT articles per month without registering. I often can’t read linked articles. I’m not sure how the quote presented speaks to the facts of the case. Perhaps a good definition of systemic racism would help.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 21, 2021, 05:15:56 PM
Systemic racism, as I am seeing it defined, contends that there are pervasive policies and practices throughout the entire society that support and encourage an unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race. The premise underlying this is that we are said to be a county founded as a racist society that has only continued this practice into modern times. 

These racist based practices are said to be part of the entire structure of the society:economic, judicial, educational, healthcare, religious institutions, etc.

Any disparity between races, in this case Black and White, is primarily explained as a result of racially influenced institutions and organizations.  Other conditions may factor in, but the disparities are primary race-based and intrinsic to the very structure of our society on multiple levels. 

Would this seem to be a fair place to start?  Or am I characterizing the concept in a wrong way?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 21, 2021, 05:49:57 PM
Systemic racism, as I am seeing it defined, contends that there are pervasive policies and practices throughout the entire society that support and encourage an unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race. The premise underlying this is that we are said to be a county founded as a racist society that has only continued this practice into modern times. 

These racist based practices are said to be part of the entire structure of the society:economic, judicial, educational, healthcare, religious institutions, etc.

Any disparity between races, in this case Black and White, is primarily explained as a result of racially influenced institutions and organizations.  Other conditions may factor in, but the disparities are primary race-based and intrinsic to the very structure of our society on multiple levels. 

Would this seem to be a fair place to start?  Or am I characterizing the concept in a wrong way?
That’s more or less how I’ve seen it defined. The problem is how the theory is even testable. Mostly I’ve seen the question settled by claiming it isn’t a theory but a fact, and to call it a theory is to be complicit in racism. Already in this thread we’ve seen how questioning whether or not other factors primarily caused Floyd’s death leads a certain kind of mind to think “white nationalism” or to fret that the alpb forum includes such thoughts. Systemic racism must be accepted as a matter of faith in order for the discussion to proceed. Doubting Thomases are not shown the hands and side, they’re shown the door.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Weedon on April 21, 2021, 05:54:23 PM
On systemic racism, let me again recommend reading Isabel Wilkerson’s book Caste. As I said before, I was irritated with what seemed the assumptions at the beginning, but the further in the book I went, the more aghast I grew at what she presented. I think it’s one of the most important books I’ve read in the last ten years. I think it helped this southerner see something that was right before his eyes his whole life, and which I simply did not realize was there.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 21, 2021, 06:55:17 PM
On systemic racism, let me again recommend reading Isabel Wilkerson’s book Caste. As I said before, I was irritated with what seemed the assumptions at the beginning, but the further in the book I went, the more aghast I grew at what she presented. I think it’s one of the most important books I’ve read in the last ten years. I think it helped this southerner see something that was right before his eyes his whole life, and which I simply did not realize was there.

How has it changed the way you deal with the issue of race, especially in the church (since that is a primary area of work and life for most of us here)? Has it had an impact not only in what you now realize and understand, but in the way you approach the various 'systems' of society?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Weedon on April 21, 2021, 07:21:57 PM
Don, it was more personal than ecclesial. It helped me stop excusing the inexcusable stance of my family in pretending they could own people and sell them; and in pretending the big blow up was about states’ rights and not, as Matt Stanek said so bluntly a couple months back, “the states’ right to enslave fellow human beings.” It above all stopped me dead in my tracks from thinking I KNEW the truth about what my black sisters and brothers have been through and continue to experience, and instead, called me to LISTEN. I emailed Vic Belton to ask him if he had anything to say that I needed to hear, because I was terrified, after I finished her book, that I’d not honestly really listened before. As for our Church, right now, we’re mostly still an all caucasian church. There are some adopted children of Chinese origin; a family with hispanic heritage. But I live in a town where we have several black families, or mixed race families. It opened my eyes to the importance of reaching out to them, asking them how THEY are doing in these troubled times, and listening to their experience. Weedon has always been too quick to run his mouth (and as you all know, his fingers). It was time to remember: two ears, one mouth. Quick to listen, slow to speak. I was horrified by the stories Isabel told, and particularly her own personal accounts, which she mostly saves up to the end. But I needed to hear them. And to sit with them. To think about them, and say nothing. Other than: Kyrie, eleison. That, and, Lord, help me to honor each and every person whom You have made in Your own image, of one blood, and whom Your Son has redeemed with HIS precious blood.

P.S. And it made me wish like anything that I could go back and ask my family some questions that need answering. But they’re all dead now. Was there a lynching tree in our hometown? Did we have any ancestors who took those awful pictures and made POSTCARDS of them?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 21, 2021, 08:32:25 PM
Thank you, Pastor Weedon, for your words about Isabelle Wilkerson's book. Caste opened the eyes of many people who have been beneficiaries of racism and the heritage of slavery, but have denied having anything to do with racism today. And it's not just race, but the enshrined caste system in our land; perhaps not as deep and structured as in India, but present nonetheless.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Michael Slusser on April 21, 2021, 08:40:17 PM
Peter Speckhard recently wrote in response to Pr. Engebretson's effort to sum up systemic racism
Quote
That’s more or less how I’ve seen it defined. The problem is how the theory is even testable.
60 years ago it was tested by John Howard Griffin, who wrote Black Like Me. He colored his skin dark and went through the Jim Crow South, discovering by personal experience that what Engebretson summed up as
Quote
Systemic racism, as I am seeing it defined, contends that there are pervasive policies and practices throughout the entire society that support and encourage an unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race. The premise underlying this is that we are said to be a county founded as a racist society that has only continued this practice into modern times.

These racist based practices are said to be part of the entire structure of the society: economic, judicial, educational, healthcare, religious institutions, etc.
was a factual description of the situation faced by colored people in America.
     I am fortunate to have read Black Like Me in the 60s. It saved me from a lot of my naivety and self-righteousness.
Quote
John Howard Griffin had embarked on a journey unlike any other. Many black authors had written about the hardship of living in the Jim Crow South. A few white writers had argued for integration. But Griffin, a novelist of extraordinary empathy rooted in his Catholic faith, had devised a daring experiment. To comprehend the lives of black people, he had darkened his skin to become black. As the civil rights movement tested various forms of civil disobedience, Griffin began a human odyssey through the South, from New Orleans to Atlanta. . . .
     “Black Like Me disabused the idea that minorities were acting out of paranoia,” says Gerald Early, a black scholar at Washington University and editor of Lure and Loathing: Essays on Race, Identity, and the Ambivalence of Assimilation. “There was this idea that black people said certain things about racism, and one rather expected them to say these things. Griffin revealed that what they were saying was true. It took someone from outside coming in to do that. And what he went through gave the book a remarkable sincerity.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/black-like-me-50-years-later-74543463/ (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/black-like-me-50-years-later-74543463/)

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 21, 2021, 08:43:30 PM
Peter Speckhard recently wrote in response to Pr. Engebretson's effort to sum up systemic racism
Quote
That’s more or less how I’ve seen it defined. The problem is how the theory is even testable.
60 years ago it was tested by John Howard Griffin, who wrote Black Like Me. He colored his skin dark and went through the Jim Crow South, discovering by personal experience that what Engebretson summed up as
Quote
Systemic racism, as I am seeing it defined, contends that there are pervasive policies and practices throughout the entire society that support and encourage an unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race. The premise underlying this is that we are said to be a county founded as a racist society that has only continued this practice into modern times.

These racist based practices are said to be part of the entire structure of the society: economic, judicial, educational, healthcare, religious institutions, etc.
was a factual description of the situation faced by colored people in America.
     I am fortunate to have read Black Like Me in the 60s. It saved me from a lot of my naivety and self-righteousness.
Quote
John Howard Griffin had embarked on a journey unlike any other. Many black authors had written about the hardship of living in the Jim Crow South. A few white writers had argued for integration. But Griffin, a novelist of extraordinary empathy rooted in his Catholic faith, had devised a daring experiment. To comprehend the lives of black people, he had darkened his skin to become black. As the civil rights movement tested various forms of civil disobedience, Griffin began a human odyssey through the South, from New Orleans to Atlanta. . . .
     “Black Like Me disabused the idea that minorities were acting out of paranoia,” says Gerald Early, a black scholar at Washington University and editor of Lure and Loathing: Essays on Race, Identity, and the Ambivalence of Assimilation. “There was this idea that black people said certain things about racism, and one rather expected them to say these things. Griffin revealed that what they were saying was true. It took someone from outside coming in to do that. And what he went through gave the book a remarkable sincerity.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/black-like-me-50-years-later-74543463/ (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/black-like-me-50-years-later-74543463/)

Peace,
Michael
You honestly think life for black people in Minnesota today is comparable to life for people in the Jim Crow South of the 1950’s? Or is that a ridiculous comparison?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on April 21, 2021, 08:43:36 PM
How far back through our pedigrees do we travel for uncovering inherited guilt and accumulating ancestral sin?

An essay I published here six years ago is still highly relevant, perhaps more relevant now than before:

"Paid in Full" (http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=5876.msg363216#msg363216)

Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Tom Eckstein on April 21, 2021, 09:30:24 PM
... I simply look at the facts of the case, not the larger sociological forces represented by the main players. And in this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on different charges. Unlike you, I do not think he was a monster or had any intent to kill anyone.

Well, it certainly has been a cold spring! Hell hath frozen over again. For the most part, in this thread I have to go with Charles as to the trial itself, not necessarily the social aspects of the case. Speaking of assumptions, yours are erroneous, Peter, and manifest an ignorance of the law and the judicial system. A few examples:

As Charles has told you at least once, Chauvin was not charged with intentional murder. He was charged with unintentional murder. So, the State did not have to show that he had an intent to kill.

You also manifest a misunderstanding of the legal definition of "depraved heart." It does not require showing that the defendant is a monster. So, the jury did not find that Chauvin is "a monster of depraved heart."

As it is, the adrenaline that comes from resisting arrest coupled with his heart condition and massive amounts of drugs in his system likely would have killed [Floyd] even if Chauvin had left him in the back seat of the car.

So what? The State had to prove that Chauvin's actions were a "substantial" cause of death.

I can't prove it, but I can say that there is at least reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd.

Well, the burden was on the State to prove it. A jury of 12 citizens who actually heard all of the evidence determined that the State did prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Peter, above you wrote:  "The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent. Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case."

Your words are pure wisdom!
[/b]
You both demean the criminal justice system. I know Peter Cahill. He was a fine practicing lawyer and is an excellent judge. The trial was about justice, holding defendants accountable for their criminal actions, and it appears that justice was served. As Mr. Garner stated, Chauvin had a good defense lawyer (Although, given my experience trying criminal cases as a defense attorney, I believe that a closing argument should never go longer than an hour,) and the prosecution did an excellent job. That the media and some commentators used the trial to serve other purposes does not detract from the fact that the trial was about Floyd and Chauvin's actions that caused his death. The system worked.

I think there will be an appeal, and Chauvin will have at least a fighting chance of acquittal on the most serious charge.

I'm not sure how that  works. An appellate court does not "acquit" anyone. They can overturn a verdict, but the prosecution has the right to retry the defendant, although they must do so in light of whatever issues the appeals court relied upon in overturning the conviction.

Of course, there will be an appeal, and the appellate court could overturn the verdict due to publicity, a failure to sequester, and the like. But an appellate court rarely attempts to second-guess the triers of fact who heard all the evidence, saw the demeanor of witnesses, etc.

I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.

Again, the 12 who actually heard all of the evidence and were actually able to assess the facts determined otherwise. And when you get your law degree and become a prosecutor, you will be able to charge defendants as you see fit.

But, thank God that we live in a country where folks can opine and pop off about things they know little or nothing about on online boards like this one, in public, and in the media.

I realize that it's CNN, but the below link gives a very good explanation of charges, terms, etc as addressed above.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/us/derek-chauvin-charges-explain/index.html

Don, when I quoted Peter's words as being "wise" I understood him to be saying NOT that the Floyd trial or judicial system itself is racist but that many in our society view what happened to George Floyd in terms of systemic racism (even though there's no evidence that the police had any racist motivation in what happened to George Floyd!) rather than it being about the incompetent behavior of a police officer in a particular situation.  In other words, if George Floyd had been white, would there have been riots in Mpls.?  Obviously, the trial and judge did not view this case in racist terms.  But many in our society DO.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dave Benke on April 21, 2021, 09:42:25 PM
As for a) really? I hadn’t heard.

Concerning b) The facts were presented that the kneeling didn’t cut off Floyd’s breathing or damage his neck or throat, that he already said he couldn’t breathe even when sitting in the car, that his Fentanyl level would be considered lethal in many cases, and there were other drugs to complicate matters, that he had a serious heart condition, and was involved in an adrenaline producing incident. I think a reasonable person might conclude he didn’t die because of being knelt on for so long. Mind you, I’m not saying he didn’t die because of that. I’m just saying a reasonable person could doubt that Chauvin killed him. And yes, I’m aware the jury disagreed. But there were medical experts who were asked as much, and they refused to speculate. So it isn’t as though the idea is so outlandish that no lawyer thought to pursue it.

This is what I said:  In the circle of friends, colleagues, relatives and acquaintances virtual and real in which I travel, you are the only person I know to date who holds the opinion that there is "reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd."   And this remains true - I know no one else who holds the opinion you hold. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 21, 2021, 09:53:39 PM
Nor do I.
And Peter writes:
You honestly think life for black people in Minnesota today is comparable to life for people in the Jim Crow South of the 1950’s? Or is that a ridiculous comparison?
I comment:
Do you honestly think that everything is just fine for African Americans and immigrants in Minnesota today? They they do not experience prejudice, racism, and are subject to the indignities and inequalities running through our society?
An acquaintance who has been a political leader in Hennepin County told me today that Minneapolis and its police force have had a "reputation" for a long time. (He is elderly and white, BTW) No, it's probably not the South in the 1940s, but...
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 21, 2021, 10:17:09 PM
As for a) really? I hadn’t heard.

Concerning b) The facts were presented that the kneeling didn’t cut off Floyd’s breathing or damage his neck or throat, that he already said he couldn’t breathe even when sitting in the car, that his Fentanyl level would be considered lethal in many cases, and there were other drugs to complicate matters, that he had a serious heart condition, and was involved in an adrenaline producing incident. I think a reasonable person might conclude he didn’t die because of being knelt on for so long. Mind you, I’m not saying he didn’t die because of that. I’m just saying a reasonable person could doubt that Chauvin killed him. And yes, I’m aware the jury disagreed. But there were medical experts who were asked as much, and they refused to speculate. So it isn’t as though the idea is so outlandish that no lawyer thought to pursue it.

This is what I said:  In the circle of friends, colleagues, relatives and acquaintances virtual and real in which I travel, you are the only person I know to date who holds the opinion that there is "reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd."   And this remains true - I know no one else who holds the opinion you hold. 

Dave Benke

It's freezing in here!!  😉
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 21, 2021, 10:23:03 PM
Don, it was more personal than ecclesial. It helped me stop excusing the inexcusable stance of my family in pretending they could own people and sell them; and in pretending the big blow up was about states’ rights and not, as Matt Stanek said so bluntly a couple months back, “the states’ right to enslave fellow human beings.” It above all stopped me dead in my tracks from thinking I KNEW the truth about what my black sisters and brothers have been through and continue to experience, and instead, called me to LISTEN. I emailed Vic Belton to ask him if he had anything to say that I needed to hear, because I was terrified, after I finished her book, that I’d not honestly really listened before. As for our Church, right now, we’re mostly still an all caucasian church. There are some adopted children of Chinese origin; a family with hispanic heritage. But I live in a town where we have several black families, or mixed race families. It opened my eyes to the importance of reaching out to them, asking them how THEY are doing in these troubled times, and listening to their experience. Weedon has always been too quick to run his mouth (and as you all know, his fingers). It was time to remember: two ears, one mouth. Quick to listen, slow to speak. I was horrified by the stories Isabel told, and particularly her own personal accounts, which she mostly saves up to the end. But I needed to hear them. And to sit with them. To think about them, and say nothing. Other than: Kyrie, eleison. That, and, Lord, help me to honor each and every person whom You have made in Your own image, of one blood, and whom Your Son has redeemed with HIS precious blood.

P.S. And it made me wish like anything that I could go back and ask my family some questions that need answering. But they’re all dead now. Was there a lynching tree in our hometown? Did we have any ancestors who took those awful pictures and made POSTCARDS of them?

Thank you for your reflections.  I just ordered CASTE from Amazon as I have not read the book.  I respect your opinion and figured that considering the issues swirling around us at this time it would be helpful for me to read it and digest the author's observations and conclusions for myself.  I have lived in predominately Caucasian communities much of my life and I have lived, at times, in communities with larger ethnic populations (black, Hispanic, Asian).  I did not grow up in what I would consider a racist environment.  I will admit that I struggle with the idea of viewing all 'systems' of our society as inherently racist. I understand the presence and reality of racism; that is not in question.  It's the issue of how pervasive and inherent it is claimed to be.  At the LCMS convention in FL a couple of summers ago I was very disturbed when a delegate accused the synod of systemic racism.  It was the first time anything I was directly associated with had received such an accusation.  It felt personal, even though I was not directly involved in the issues that were being debated at the moment.  But I realize the need to explore more than one side of an issue. This book seems like a good way to begin that process.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dan Fienen on April 21, 2021, 10:25:05 PM
Nor do I.
And Peter writes:
You honestly think life for black people in Minnesota today is comparable to life for people in the Jim Crow South of the 1950’s? Or is that a ridiculous comparison?
I comment:
Do you honestly think that everything is just fine for African Americans and immigrants in Minnesota today? They they do not experience prejudice, racism, and are subject to the indignities and inequalities running through our society?
An acquaintance who has been a political leader in Hennepin County told me today that Minneapolis and its police force have had a "reputation" for a long time. (He is elderly and white, BTS) No, it's probably not the South in the 1940s, but...
Is this situation either black or white? Either there is no racism in Minneapolis, no prejudice, no indignities, or inequalities or it is just as bad as the Jim Crow South of the 1950s? Has America made no progress in race relations over the last 70 years? Apparently until we have achieved perfection in our racial relations we are a completely corrupt nation.


I certainly am under no illusion that there are no racial problems in the United States, or that everything is fine. Nor am I suggesting that we have no need to work to improve the racial situation in America.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Michael Slusser on April 21, 2021, 10:42:23 PM
You honestly think life for black people in Minnesota today is comparable to life for people in the Jim Crow South of the 1950’s? Or is that a ridiculous comparison?
I know that life for black people in Minnesota today is not the same as life for white people in Minnesota today. That is the comparison that counts.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 21, 2021, 11:00:47 PM
You honestly think life for black people in Minnesota today is comparable to life for people in the Jim Crow South of the 1950’s? Or is that a ridiculous comparison?
I know that life for black people in Minnesota today is not the same as life for white people in Minnesota today. That is the comparison that counts.

Peace,
Michael
Fair enough. Then why bring up a book about the Jim Crow South?

Do you agree that the United States is the least racist multi-ethnic nation in the history of the world?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 21, 2021, 11:04:28 PM
Peter:
Do you agree that the United States is the least racist multi-ethnic nation in the history of the world?
Me:
That is a silly, issue-dodging question. And one that cannot be answered.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 21, 2021, 11:48:11 PM
Peter:
Do you agree that the United States is the least racist multi-ethnic nation in the history of the world?
Me:
That is a silly, issue-dodging question. And one that cannot be answered.
What would you say are top three least racist multi-ethic nations in the history of the world? It matters because all condemnation is relative. You can call Wilt Chamberlain too short all day long, and 21st Century America systemically racist all day long, but you haven’t said anything until you’ve compared it to something real. I’m quite willing to discuss actual racism, systemic racism, or any other flaw you think our nation has or this trial represents, but only if I know I’m dealing with people who deal in reality. You are not one such person, at least as far as I can tell. So I’m asking; do you acknowledge that the United States is the least (or among the least) racist multi-ethnic nations in the history of humanity? If you don’t want to answer, fine. That would be telling, but fine.

There is a very real sense of fear on matters of race. The mob rules. You may not disagree or even express doubt about the consensus without being accused of racism, white nationalism, etc. People are afraid of even the appearance of disagreeing with the mob. It is shame.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 22, 2021, 12:10:33 AM
Peter, our country may be among the least racist country in history if you want to say that. But so what? Even if true, that does not mean that the racism which does exist among us is not massive, horrendous and terribly damaging to our neighbors and our society as a whole.
Read Caste, Peter. Pastor Weedon recommends it.
And apparently my “reality“ is shared by some others in this modest forum. 
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on April 22, 2021, 02:41:22 AM
Peter Speckhard recently wrote in response to Pr. Engebretson's effort to sum up systemic racism
Quote
That’s more or less how I’ve seen it defined. The problem is how the theory is even testable.
60 years ago it was tested by John Howard Griffin, who wrote Black Like Me. He colored his skin dark and went through the Jim Crow South, discovering by personal experience that what Engebretson summed up as
Quote
Systemic racism, as I am seeing it defined, contends that there are pervasive policies and practices throughout the entire society that support and encourage an unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race. The premise underlying this is that we are said to be a county founded as a racist society that has only continued this practice into modern times.

These racist based practices are said to be part of the entire structure of the society: economic, judicial, educational, healthcare, religious institutions, etc.
was a factual description of the situation faced by colored people in America.
     I am fortunate to have read Black Like Me in the 60s. It saved me from a lot of my naivety and self-righteousness.
Quote
John Howard Griffin had embarked on a journey unlike any other. Many black authors had written about the hardship of living in the Jim Crow South. A few white writers had argued for integration. But Griffin, a novelist of extraordinary empathy rooted in his Catholic faith, had devised a daring experiment. To comprehend the lives of black people, he had darkened his skin to become black. As the civil rights movement tested various forms of civil disobedience, Griffin began a human odyssey through the South, from New Orleans to Atlanta. . . .
     “Black Like Me disabused the idea that minorities were acting out of paranoia,” says Gerald Early, a black scholar at Washington University and editor of Lure and Loathing: Essays on Race, Identity, and the Ambivalence of Assimilation. “There was this idea that black people said certain things about racism, and one rather expected them to say these things. Griffin revealed that what they were saying was true. It took someone from outside coming in to do that. And what he went through gave the book a remarkable sincerity.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/black-like-me-50-years-later-74543463/ (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/black-like-me-50-years-later-74543463/)

Peace,
Michael
You honestly think life for black people in Minnesota today is comparable to life for people in the Jim Crow South of the 1950’s? Or is that a ridiculous comparison?


I've heard Blacks state that the discrimination they experienced in the North was worse than in the South, because it was better hidden, more subtle. A white friend in Minneapolis area adopted two African children. The youngest is still in high school. Yes, they have experienced discrimination because of the color of their skin. Maybe it's not as great as it was in the 1960, but it hasn't disappeared.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 22, 2021, 04:32:01 AM
But we can relax, Brian, because other places are worse and we’re already better than anyone has ever been. Yeah, that’s it.  ::)
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dan Fienen on April 22, 2021, 07:17:12 AM
But we can relax, Brian, because other places are worse and we’re already better than anyone has ever been. Yeah, that’s it.  ::)
Well, at least as you sit back and enjoy the fruits of your white privilege and the perquisites of being part of the oppressor caste you can still snear at those who are not enlightened enough to recognize what a truly terrible county this is that has afforded you your comfortable life.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 22, 2021, 08:02:35 AM
You are missing the point. Nobody is saying racism does not exist or that it isn’t terrible. I’m saying racism is not the lens through which we ought to view individual crimes. Only if we know that race played a role should we treat something as a racial incident. We should not assume that race played a role merely because the officer was white and the victim black. Police misconduct and brutality is real. This trial should have gone off the exact same way as it would have if Chauvin were black or Floyd white. But it didn’t; it became a parable about race relations without any evidence that race had anything to do with it. 

Calling America inherently racist without acknowledging that it is among the least racist nations ever to exist is like calling America poor without recognizing that it is among the richest nations ever to exist. Poverty in America is real and bad, but does not define America or the American experiment. Nor does racism, which is also real and bad. Nor do rape, child molestation, or any number of of other real and terrible things define America.

In this case, I think the pressure to treat the case as a national parable about race led the prosecution to seek charges that were a stretch given the facts. I realize the jury disagreed. Duh. But debate about whether this or that more serious charge was warranted, or disagreement with there the charges eventually landed is not allowed among certain people, which is a toxic situation.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Michael Slusser on April 22, 2021, 08:25:01 AM
You honestly think life for black people in Minnesota today is comparable to life for people in the Jim Crow South of the 1950’s? Or is that a ridiculous comparison?
I know that life for black people in Minnesota today is not the same as life for white people in Minnesota today. That is the comparison that counts.

Peace,
Michael
Fair enough. Then why bring up a book about the Jim Crow South?
Because Griffin actually tested what you doubted was even testable, namely that racism, racism the way Pr. Engebretson summarized it, is systemic.

If Griffin tested it, it's testable, and he did it so long ago that no one should pretend that it's not testable.

Peace,
Michael

Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dave Benke on April 22, 2021, 08:34:28 AM
In this case, I think the pressure to treat the case as a national parable about race led the prosecution to seek charges that were a stretch given the facts.

Or the video taken by Darnella Frazier made it impossible for the initial police statement,  "man dies after medical incident during police interaction," to become the determining narrative.
https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/04/21/989480867/darnella-frazier-teen-who-filmed-floyds-murder-praised-for-making-verdict-possib

Police reform, which includes the national parable about race but is not exclusively about race, is taking place and needs to take place.  Exposure, although uncomfortable, provides opportunity for change.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 22, 2021, 08:48:18 AM
You honestly think life for black people in Minnesota today is comparable to life for people in the Jim Crow South of the 1950’s? Or is that a ridiculous comparison?
I know that life for black people in Minnesota today is not the same as life for white people in Minnesota today. That is the comparison that counts.

Peace,
Michael
Fair enough. Then why bring up a book about the Jim Crow South?
Because Griffin actually tested what you doubted was even testable, namely that racism, racism the way Pr. Engebretson summarized it, is systemic.

If Griffin tested it, it's testable, and he did it so long ago that no one should pretend that it's not testable.

Peace,
Michael
That racism was systemic in the Jim Crow South was obvious. It was codified into the system. It said black people and white people were to be treated differently by law. Those laws have all been eliminated from the system. Show me where the system today is racist and I will work to change it. But I won’t simply call the system racist, which is what many are doing. Justice is to be colorblind. But these days even holding that up as a goal is called racist White nationalism. Which, again, is a toxic situation.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 22, 2021, 08:59:12 AM
Peter, each of your comments proves again and again how clueless you are about this particular problem in our land and this discussion. Just because racism is not supported by  “law“ does not mean it is not systemic in our society.
I ask again, do you ignore the statistics about how minorities are treated by our justice system?
Do you ignore the statistics about police interaction with minorities compared with their interaction with white people?
Do you ignore the economic statistics about such things as housing loans, living conditions, employment, and related matters?
You seem to believe that just because certain laws have been removed from the books, that evil which those laws supported disappeared.
Again, read the two books mentioned upstream. Maybe then you will see how your language, unintentionally probably, echoes that of the white nationalists. And how your words are the kind of words which encourage too many people to say “there’s nothing to see here, move on.“
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: D. Engebretson on April 22, 2021, 09:14:01 AM
Yesterday Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Department of Justice will investigate the practices of the Minneapolis Police Department.

“The investigation I am announcing today will assess whether the Minneapolis Police Department engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force, including during protests,” Garland said during a news conference...

Garland said the investigation will also examine whether the department’s treatment of individuals with behavioral health disabilities is lawful. He said the DOJ had already begun outreach to the local community.

“Yesterday’s verdict in the state criminal trial does not address potentially systemic policing issues in Minneapolis,” Garland said.

The Justice Department probe is known as a pattern-or-practice investigation. The DOJ had earlier announced a separate investigation into whether Chauvin violated Floyd’s civil rights.

During his remarks, Garland emphasized that he believed that the majority of the nation’s police officers did their best to uphold the law.

“I strongly believe that good officers do not want to work in systems that allow bad practices. Good officers welcome accountability, because accountability is an essential part of building trust with the community, and public safety requires public trust,” Garland said.

Pattern-or-practice investigations, the Justice Department has said, often examine “whether the police department has engaged in a pattern or practice of stops, searches, or arrests that violate the Fourth Amendment; use of excessive force; discriminatory policing; violation of the constitutional rights of criminal suspects; or violation of First Amendment rights.”

If the DOJ concludes that a police department has systematically violated the law, it can pursue a settlement, often known as a consent decree, which sometimes entails independent monitoring or other reforms. The agreement must be approved by a court.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/21/garland-to-announce-doj-probe-of-minneapolis-police-after-chauvin-verdict.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/21/garland-to-announce-doj-probe-of-minneapolis-police-after-chauvin-verdict.html)

It will be interesting what this probe concludes and how it impacts the overall climate and morale of the police department. 
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 22, 2021, 09:43:46 AM
Peter, each of your comments proves again and again how clueless you are about this particular problem in our land and this discussion. Just because racism is not supported by  “law“ does not mean it is not systemic in our society.
I ask again, do you ignore the statistics about how minorities are treated by our justice system?
Do you ignore the statistics about police interaction with minorities compared with their interaction with white people?
Do you ignore the economic statistics about such things as housing loans, living conditions, employment, and related matters?
You seem to believe that just because certain laws have been removed from the books, that evil which those laws supported disappeared.
Again, read the two books mentioned upstream. Maybe then you will see how your language, unintentionally probably, echoes that of the white nationalists. And how your words are the kind of words which encourage too many people to say “there’s nothing to see here, move on.“
As I stated upstream, our disagreement is at the level of assumption. Statistics about loans, living conditions, employment, etc. only speak to systemic racism if you assume that is the only or best explanation. You can't show me any part of "the system" that is racist. You can only point to differing outcomes among racial groups. But I do not think racism is the only or even the primary explanation. For example, Asians outperform white people in America by most metrics. I do not think America is systemically biased toward Asians. Our school, like many schools, struggles to find male teachers. That doesn't mean we are systemically sexist.

I've probably read more on this topic than you give me credit for and am less clueless than you think. I simply don't share your lens. Let me give you another example. I read a lot about sexuality/gender issues. Practically every expert these days insists that sex is separate from gender and that we should think in terms of a spectrum of sexuality rather than a binary. I disagree. That doesn't mean I am clueless. It means a disagree with an academic or cultural consensus because I do not share the foundational assumptions they build upon. But I do read them and do understand their arguments.

What is problematic about discourse these days is the tendency to shout down opposing viewpoints rather than engage with them. You agree with the academic/cultural consensus that I disagree with, but you do not engage. You do not answer questions. You simply say, "How dare you? Everyone disagrees with you! You must be a bad person!" Your ongoing efforts to link me with white nationalism is an example. It is a mere attempt to isolate and stigmatize. And it often works; people are intimidated or shamed into refusing to discuss certain topics. But even when it works it is shameful, and it leads to a toxic environment of accusation, suspicion, defensiveness, and virtue-signalling.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dan Fienen on April 22, 2021, 10:03:39 AM
We have a number of paradigms (the lens through which we view the world) being used to analyze the structure and dynamics of society and prescribe correctives. The problem is that none of them taken alone adequately account for the complexity of human interactions but oversimplify reality and end up as procrustean beds for thought and analysis. I can think of four currently popular and overlapping paradigms, Marxism, capitalism, post-modernism, and critical race theory. Marxism is the oldest, approaching 150 years, analyzes everything in terms of class and economics with economics the primary focus. Pure capitalism also focusses on economics with the emphasis on analyzing every thing in terms of money and the acquisition of wealth. In both of these, money in terms of wages and accumulated wealth (capital) is basically all that really matters. They are, in a way, opposite sides of the same coin, diametrically opposed in objectives. Post-modernism analyzes everything in terms power, power relationships, and the striving for power. Critical race theory analyzes everything in terms of race. In critical race theory, race is the only thing that matters and the only thing worth thinking about. Obviously, my one or two sentence summaries are overly simplistic.


Each of these paradigms offer valuable insights into the workings of human society and human interactions. There is much truth in their analyzes or they would not have been so popular or enduring. They all give keen insights into aspects of society and make good suggestions on how society could be improved. Problems arise, however, when any one paradigm claims to be the exclusive and complete model of reality to the exclusion of any other. There has been a distinct tendency to claim that all of reality fits into one favored paradigm and any part of reality that does not fit is either illusionary or at least insignificant. Life is more complex and messier than can be encompassed into one paradigm.


America certainly has a racist past. From the beginning there was systemic racism baked into its laws and socio/economic structure. But the American experiment was not just about race. Even at the beginning there were aspects of the American aspiration that was noble, enlightened, and progressive. There were gold and diamonds mixed in with the dross of oppression. From the beginning, America was a mixture of good and bad. To focus only on the good and ignore the bad would be as unrealistic and unhelpful as it would be to focus only on the bad and ignore the good.


If America is going to actually improve and be a better nation and society, we need to be able to look realistically at the complexity of American life rather than simply focus on one aspect only. We also need to recognize the good that has been there from the beginning and build on that rather than pretend that we, the noble and enlightened ones, alone have invented civic virtue. America was founded on the ideal of freedom and liberty for all. It must be acknowledged that we have never fully lived up to that ideal and work to correct the ways that we have fallen short, often far short, of our ideals. But to do so it is necessary also to acknowledge that those ideals have been there as an aspiration and recognize where progress has been made and build on that rather than deny there was ever any virtue before we came on the scene.


One of the besetting pathologies of the human, and especially American psyche is perfectionism. We like things simple, black or white, good or bad. We like our heroes to be pure through and through, and our villains totally evil. The harsh reality is that nobody is all good or all bad. With our current cancel culture we are going through another perfectionistic spasm. One thing that we desperately need is a more realistic understanding of human nature that accepts the complexity of reality and especially the complexity of people. Stereotyping, no matter who is doing it to whom is the antithesis of realism. But racial, class, social, and economic stereotyping is all the rage these days, from all sides. The polarization of America is not a new thing, nor is it rooted in any one political party, race, or class. Nor can it be correct overnight. Just as racism with it's deep roots cannot be uprooted in a day but gains built on rather than denied until perfection comes, the trust that overcomes polarization must be worked towards.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: mariemeyer on April 22, 2021, 11:08:31 AM
A statement by Fox News anchor Jeanine Pirro, a former New York State judge:

"Make no mistake, the facts are solid on this verdict. The verdict will be upheld on appeal."


At the usual 5 p.m. talk show, "The Five," co-host Juan Williams said..."It would have been so upsetting, it would have been a kick in the stomach, if in this most extreme situation, where everybody can see what happened, if the jury had somehow said, 'Let's split the verdict.'"   

Interesting.

Marie meyer
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on April 22, 2021, 11:14:03 AM
Peter writes:
What is problematic about discourse these days is the tendency to shout down opposing viewpoints rather than engage with them. You agree with the academic/cultural consensus that I disagree with, but you do not engage. You do not answer questions. You simply say, "How dare you? Everyone disagrees with you! You must be a bad person!"
I comment:
Oh, just stop. That response is not typical of you and it is unworthy of you. I’m not talking about being a “a bad person.” I’m talking about seeing society the way it is. You talk about a lens. Well there are lenses and there are lenses. Some focus; some show a broader view. And some actually obscure the True View. I believe yours does.

Peter:
Your ongoing efforts to link me with white nationalism is an example. It is a mere attempt to isolate and stigmatize.
Me:
It is not. And your response is an effort to stop the discussion about it.

Peter:
And it often works; people are intimidated or shamed into refusing to discuss certain topics. But even when it works it is shameful, and it leads to a toxic environment of accusation, suspicion, defensiveness, and virtue-signalling.
Me:
I would be surprised if you are intimidated. I do not think you have an accurate view of the real situation and it has nothing to do with assumptions or lenses. And you are making improper links between the discussion of sexuality and racism as they are two totally different aspects of our society and our relationship with one another.
You write that I can “only point to different outcomes among racial groups.“ what measurement would you use in evaluating differences in groups access to education, housing, healthcare, equality before the law, and education? If certain groups have massively less access to these things than certain other groups, why is that? And if those certain groups happen to be people of color, and the other groups happen to be white, what is that?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on April 22, 2021, 11:20:40 AM
You honestly think life for black people in Minnesota today is comparable to life for people in the Jim Crow South of the 1950’s? Or is that a ridiculous comparison?
I know that life for black people in Minnesota today is not the same as life for white people in Minnesota today. That is the comparison that counts.

Peace,
Michael
Fair enough. Then why bring up a book about the Jim Crow South?
Because Griffin actually tested what you doubted was even testable, namely that racism, racism the way Pr. Engebretson summarized it, is systemic.

If Griffin tested it, it's testable, and he did it so long ago that no one should pretend that it's not testable.

Peace,
Michael
That racism was systemic in the Jim Crow South was obvious. It was codified into the system. It said black people and white people were to be treated differently by law. Those laws have all been eliminated from the system. Show me where the system today is racist and I will work to change it. But I won’t simply call the system racist, which is what many are doing. Justice is to be colorblind. But these days even holding that up as a goal is called racist White nationalism. Which, again, is a toxic situation.


True: "Justice is to be colorblind," but it's not. There are studies that show that whites receive lesser sentences for the same crimes that blacks commit; along with other disparities in law enforcement.


https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/07/27/disparities/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwvYSEBhDjARIsAJMn0liSAKrd0vxHTGpfcYyz6J32QHCWAuK6_fGez1A8XQbdFvNDpVwG2QkaAo5EEALw_wcB
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: mariemeyer on April 22, 2021, 11:57:07 AM
A given device only gets a handful of NYT articles per month without registering. I often can’t read linked articles. I’m not sure how the quote presented speaks to the facts of the case. Perhaps a good definition of systemic racism would help.

Peter, please try again to bring up the link that pastor John Hannah posted. Ordinarily, there is no need to register.

                 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/opinion/derek-chauvin-verdict-floyd.html

As to the quotes I posted:  They were intended to touch the heart of any man who is a father, a citizen of the USA, a Christian and has an interest in reading or writing editorials. 

No need to divert attention to an academic definition of systemic racism.   

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dan Fienen on April 22, 2021, 12:07:14 PM
True: "Justice is to be colorblind," but it's not. There are studies that show that whites receive lesser sentences for the same crimes that blacks commit; along with other disparities in law enforcement.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/07/27/disparities/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwvYSEBhDjARIsAJMn0liSAKrd0vxHTGpfcYyz6J32QHCWAuK6_fGez1A8XQbdFvNDpVwG2QkaAo5EEALw_wcB (https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/07/27/disparities/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwvYSEBhDjARIsAJMn0liSAKrd0vxHTGpfcYyz6J32QHCWAuK6_fGez1A8XQbdFvNDpVwG2QkaAo5EEALw_wcB)
I would affirm that both of these statements are true: The American law enforcement and justice system does a better job of treating racial minorities fairly and justly than it did fifty or a hundred years ago, and The American law enforcement and justice system still does not always treat racial minorities fairly and there is still disparate experiences by racial minorities. I actually do not see a conflict between them. Furthermore I think that we can celebrate the success represented by the first statement while at the same time recognizing the reality and challenge of the second. We have come a long way but now is not the time to be satisfied and cease striving to improve. But we should be able to celebrate our gains without turning that celebration into complacency.


The fight against racism must progress on four fronts:


1) Removing legal and structural barriers to racial justice. Most of the legal barriers and overt structural barriers have been removed with the dismantling of Jim Crow and the Civil Rights legislation. There still needs to be some more work to remove vestiges of this type of systemic racism that had gone unnoticed.


2) Changes in procedures and operational habits that perpetuated racial oppression. Even when the underlying laws have been changed to reduce or eliminate racial bias there is an inertia in how institutions and structures operate. Changing this will mean careful examination of how things get done and making changes as necessary. It will also mean retraining people out of old bad habits and into the new fairer procedures. This cannot be done overnight.


3) Changing the hearts and minds of people. Some people are simply racist in their beliefs and attitudes. It is perhaps possible to educate people out of those, or bring about a change of heart, but the success rate of doing so is often heartbreakingly low. People with outright racist attitudes need to be forced to operate in nonracist manners or removed from positions of power and influence where their racist proclivities can do damage. Others may still have somewhat racist attitudes and habits that they need to be educated out of and learn better ways of interacting. But again, changing people takes time, something that the current climate of intolerance rarely has patience for.


4) Past racism has left its mark not only on the laws, procedures, structures, and attitudes of America, it has left its mark on the objects of past racism that rendered them at distinct disadvantages for building successful lives. In the past, racial minorities have typically received poorer education, family structures have been damaged, life skills and work skills have not been as well cultivated, the list goes on. That and their economic oppression have interfered with the development of generational capital. All of these must be overcome. Assistance can and should be given but the disadvantaged themselves must also work to overcome these barriers. Success cannot be given, it must be worked for. As an example, look at the families that achieved great success and how often later generations frittered away that success when they inherited it.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: James S. Rustad on April 22, 2021, 12:25:26 PM
You write that I can “only point to different outcomes among racial groups.“ what measurement would you use in evaluating differences in groups access to education, housing, healthcare, equality before the law, and education? If certain groups have massively less access to these things than certain other groups, why is that? And if those certain groups happen to be people of color, and the other groups happen to be white, what is that?

Different outcomes among racial groups does not prove racism.  To prove racism one has to show that racism was the cause of the different outcomes.  Has that been done in the case of Derek Chauvin?  No.

Lest you attempt to isolate and stigmatize my position as you have done to Peter, please keep in mind that I freely admit that there are racists in the United States.  Unlike some, I don't blame racism for every bad thing that happens to those who are often the targets of racism.  Seeing racism as the only cause of every bad outcome denies that there are any other causes that might also need addressing.

Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 22, 2021, 12:47:42 PM
From someone who actually saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony and arguments of counsel, etc.

"Chauvin alternate juror says she was 'pretty uncomfortable' locking eyes with ex-cop

Juror says she 'would have said guilty'"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chauvin-alternate-juror-interview-guilty-verdict

I realize she equivocates on whether she thought Chauvin was guilty on all counts. That would have been fleshed out in jury deliberations, of which she was not a part.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: MaddogLutheran on April 22, 2021, 01:31:17 PM
You write that I can “only point to different outcomes among racial groups.“ what measurement would you use in evaluating differences in groups access to education, housing, healthcare, equality before the law, and education? If certain groups have massively less access to these things than certain other groups, why is that? And if those certain groups happen to be people of color, and the other groups happen to be white, what is that?

Different outcomes among racial groups does not prove racism.  To prove racism one has to show that racism was the cause of the different outcomes.  Has that been done in the case of Derek Chauvin?  No.

Lest you attempt to isolate and stigmatize my position as you have done to Peter, please keep in mind that I freely admit that there are racists in the United States.  Unlike some, I don't blame racism for every bad thing that happens to those who are often the targets of racism.  Seeing racism as the only cause of every bad outcome denies that there are any other causes that might also need addressing.

Thank you for saying this, especially the bold.  If we were to follow this logic slavishly (can I say that?  ::  maybe I should use the religiously instead)). the ELCA would be one of the most racist churches in the United States.  Of course analyzing situations in this manner is flawed.  Disparate impact carries the day and trumps any inconvenient facts or history.  But I realize in an age where "Everything is infrastructure", it's easy to attribute racism to anything one wishes to demonize, without bothering to show any intermediate justification.   That dopamine jolt, amirite?  "Othering" others is just the best.  Thank God I am not like those sinners.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 22, 2021, 02:05:33 PM
Peter writes:
What is problematic about discourse these days is the tendency to shout down opposing viewpoints rather than engage with them. You agree with the academic/cultural consensus that I disagree with, but you do not engage. You do not answer questions. You simply say, "How dare you? Everyone disagrees with you! You must be a bad person!"
I comment:
Oh, just stop. That response is not typical of you and it is unworthy of you. I’m not talking about being a “a bad person.” I’m talking about seeing society the way it is. You talk about a lens. Well there are lenses and there are lenses. Some focus; some show a broader view. And some actually obscure the True View. I believe yours does.

Peter:
Your ongoing efforts to link me with white nationalism is an example. It is a mere attempt to isolate and stigmatize.
Me:
It is not. And your response is an effort to stop the discussion about it.

Peter:
And it often works; people are intimidated or shamed into refusing to discuss certain topics. But even when it works it is shameful, and it leads to a toxic environment of accusation, suspicion, defensiveness, and virtue-signalling.
Me:
I would be surprised if you are intimidated. I do not think you have an accurate view of the real situation and it has nothing to do with assumptions or lenses. And you are making improper links between the discussion of sexuality and racism as they are two totally different aspects of our society and our relationship with one another.
You write that I can “only point to different outcomes among racial groups.“ what measurement would you use in evaluating differences in groups access to education, housing, healthcare, equality before the law, and education? If certain groups have massively less access to these things than certain other groups, why is that? And if those certain groups happen to be people of color, and the other groups happen to be white, what is that?
You think the links are improper because you don't even try to find the point of comparison. I was not comparing race to sexuality; I was comparing areas in which a difference in foundational assumptions can lead to a disagreement with the academic/cultural consensus, which doesn't mean cluelessness or lack of understanding, but, as I said, difference of assumption. A strict 6 day, literal creationist might disagree with every scientist he comes across. That doesn't mean he is clueless about evolution or doesn't understand it. It means he starts from a different set of assumptions.

You don't even realize how much your lens affects you. I've brought it up before in this forum when Dave Benke brought up race in regard to my critique of the Super Bowl halftime show. People who grow accustomed to thinking in those terms see racism where there is none and don't even apologize when they falsely accuse people of being racist. You have persisted in your ludicrous association of me with white nationalism because you don't think such slander is anything to apologize for. That is because you don't even see it as slander. My failure to look at the world through your lens gives you permission to accuse me of such things.

That different racial groups can different outcomes without racism being the cause is obvious. It happens everywhere all the time. Different cultures value different things. Different histories lead to different conditions. Mississippi underperforms Minnesota by virtually any metric, but I don't think the U.S is systemically biased against Mississippi. I think a lot of historical and cultural factors explain the disparity. Similarly, historic racism-- redlining, segregation, etc. was really systemic racism. But that is all gone. Show me a remnant of systemic racism and I'll join you in eliminating it. The lingering of effects of past systemic racism, such as lack of ancestral wealth, lack of parents/grandparents with good education, etc. means African American are way behind other groups by many measures. That doesn't mean there is still systemic racism, it means the effects of prior systemic racism linger. And some cultural factors, such as high percentages of fatherless children, play a big role in differing outcomes, too.

In the Chauvin/Floyd case, I thought the most serious charges were a stretch. I get that this is a minority opinion, and that the jury, many infallible lawyers, and even Fox tv lawyers disagree. Okay. But the fact that they're talking about shows that it is something a reasonable person might disagree with. Nobody writes and article or goes on a talk show to declare something that nobody could possibly disagree with. The real sticking point is that I don't assume this was a racial incident and most everyone else does. And the key is that they assume it, they don't know it. I think of Chauvin and Floyd as an officer and a citizen, not a white officer and a black citizen.

Your assertion that this discussion has nothing to do with lenses or assumptions shows me that you aren't understanding anything I'm saying.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 22, 2021, 02:16:29 PM
From someone who actually saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony and arguments of counsel, etc.

"Chauvin alternate juror says she was 'pretty uncomfortable' locking eyes with ex-cop

Juror says she 'would have said guilty'"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chauvin-alternate-juror-interview-guilty-verdict

I realize she equivocates on whether she thought Chauvin was guilty on all counts. That would have been fleshed out in jury deliberations, of which she was not a part.
How is it possible that an alternate juror who looked at all the evidence and followed the trial could equivocate on whether Chauvin was guilty on all counts? Maybe if I had been in on the deliberations I would have changed my mind, too, but I wasn't, and neither were you or this alternate juror. So we agree that reasonable people could have some doubts about whether the most serious charges were a stretch. Either that or somehow a racist got through the jury selection process. After all, racism is the only possible explanation for having any doubts Chauvin's guilt of the most serious of the charges. I wonder what branch of the white nationalist militia that alternate juror was in. ::)
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on April 22, 2021, 02:39:56 PM
From someone who actually saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony and arguments of counsel, etc.

"Chauvin alternate juror says she was 'pretty uncomfortable' locking eyes with ex-cop

Juror says she 'would have said guilty'"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chauvin-alternate-juror-interview-guilty-verdict (https://www.foxnews.com/us/chauvin-alternate-juror-interview-guilty-verdict)

I realize she equivocates on whether she thought Chauvin was guilty on all counts. That would have been fleshed out in jury deliberations, of which she was not a part.
How is it possible that an alternate juror who looked at all the evidence and followed the trial could equivocate on whether Chauvin was guilty on all counts? Maybe if I had been in on the deliberations I would have changed my mind, too, but I wasn't, and neither were you or this alternate juror. So we agree that reasonable people could have some doubts about whether the most serious charges were a stretch. Either that or somehow a racist got through the jury selection process. After all, racism is the only possible explanation for having any doubts Chauvin's guilt of the most serious of the charges. I wonder what branch of the white nationalist militia that alternate juror was in. ::)


What convinces you that officer Chauvin would have treated a white suspect in exactly the same way that he treated George Floyd; that he would have used excessive force that caused his death?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 22, 2021, 02:40:13 PM
Peter,

Unfortunately, sarcasm and ridicule again are manifested in your comment. That seems to be your strong suit when operating out of ignorance, in this case of what jury instructions and jury deliberations entail.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 22, 2021, 02:46:53 PM
From someone who actually saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony and arguments of counsel, etc.

"Chauvin alternate juror says she was 'pretty uncomfortable' locking eyes with ex-cop

Juror says she 'would have said guilty'"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chauvin-alternate-juror-interview-guilty-verdict (https://www.foxnews.com/us/chauvin-alternate-juror-interview-guilty-verdict)

I realize she equivocates on whether she thought Chauvin was guilty on all counts. That would have been fleshed out in jury deliberations, of which she was not a part.
How is it possible that an alternate juror who looked at all the evidence and followed the trial could equivocate on whether Chauvin was guilty on all counts? Maybe if I had been in on the deliberations I would have changed my mind, too, but I wasn't, and neither were you or this alternate juror. So we agree that reasonable people could have some doubts about whether the most serious charges were a stretch. Either that or somehow a racist got through the jury selection process. After all, racism is the only possible explanation for having any doubts Chauvin's guilt of the most serious of the charges. I wonder what branch of the white nationalist militia that alternate juror was in. ::)


What convinces you that officer Chauvin would have treated a white suspect in exactly the same way that he treated George Floyd; that he would have used excessive force that caused his death?
I have no reason to think otherwise. What makes you think he treated Floyd differently because he was black?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 22, 2021, 02:57:29 PM
Peter,

Unfortunately, sarcasm and ridicule again are manifested in your comment. That seems to be your strong suit when operating out of ignorance, in this case of what jury instructions and jury deliberations entail.
I've only served on a jury in a criminal trial once. It was a sexual assault case. County court in Wisconsin. Listened to the jury instructions. Turned down a nomination to be foreman in favor of having the oldest one among us fill that role. Deliberated with the jury for maybe an hour or so before turning in an unanimous verdict. Since most people have never served on a jury in a criminal case in county court, I think I know more about it than the average American. Have you ever served on a jury in a criminal case?   
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: David Garner on April 22, 2021, 02:59:17 PM
I did not follow the trial word-for-word.  My assistant did, and as part of that I got frequent updates on what was going on.  I will say this -- it seems to me the testimony of Dr. Rich was the deal-sealer in the case.  That is, once the cause of death was determined, the jury did not have to connect many dots to get the requisite elements for a conviction.  The defense, as I said before, could not overcome the strong evidence presented by Dr. Rich that George Floyd was suffocated to death by Derek Chauvin.  This result, in turn, proximately followed a series of compounding errors made by Chauvin on scene.  He used a level of force greater than that needed to subdue the suspect and attain compliance.  Once Floyd was cuffed, there was no need for him to continue with his knee on his neck.  If that was his only error, he might not even be guilty of a crime, but then beyond that, when information was made available to him not only by bystanders, but in fact by one of his fellow officers (who asked whether Floyd should be turned on his side) and notably by Floyd himself, indicating Floyd was in distress, Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd's neck, almost defiantly.  When EMTs arrived on-scene and wished to render aid to Floyd, they were stopped -- by Chauvin.  Dr. Rich indicated that you could pinpoint on the video the moment where George Floyd died.  The jury literally watched him take his last breath. And having watched him take it, and heard the testimony of Dr. Rich, they knew that the death was caused by the series of compounding errors made by Chauvin.

To me, the racial aspects of this go far more toward why Chauvin chose to treat Floyd in this way as opposed to (largely hypothetical) others, and far less to whether Chauvin is guilty of the crimes charged.  The jury did not convict Chauvin of racism. They convicted him of murder.  The murder charge is not, as I see it, tainted in any way by the allegations of racism, in either direction.  It stands firm on the evidence presented at trial.  I think arguments that imply that the jury was somehow wrongly swayed by the politics and sociological aspects of the case minimize how strong the case against him was.  Derek Chauvin is a murderer.  Whether he is a racist or not is an important question, and whether officers need better training to recognize how they interact with the black community is an equally important question.  But those questions do not, in any way, impact the evidence at trial.  Take race away from the discussion, and Derek Chauvin is still a murderer.  I'd rather us not lose sight of that in light of the recent rabbit trail that has emerged in this thread.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 22, 2021, 03:08:21 PM
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/04/22/dershowitz-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-to-intimidate-chauvin-jury-n1441877

Alan Dershowitz thinks it should have been declared a mistrial due to intimidation. Is he an expert?

I agree that the case hinged on convincing the jury that Chauvin kneeling on him was the cause of death. I happen to think the other evidence-- the lack of damage to the throat/neck and the Fentanyl and other factors, the other video showing that Chauvin was not cutting off Floyd's breathing, etc. suggest at least reasonable doubt (again, not saying it didn't happen, just that there is reasonable doubt) about that. And without that, the most serious charges are out the window. The jury disagreed. Fine. Of course, as I mentioned way upstream, I respect the verdict. The hypersensitivity toward any hint of doubt and the assumption that those doubts must stem from racial bias if not white nationalism is somewhat bizarre, but shows just how politicized it has become. Enforcement of groupthink is the order of the day.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 22, 2021, 03:15:51 PM
Peter,

Unfortunately, sarcasm and ridicule again are manifested in your comment. That seems to be your strong suit when operating out of ignorance, in this case of what jury instructions and jury deliberations entail.
I've only served on a jury in a criminal trial once.

Then you may have heard something similar to this:

"DUTIES 0F JUDGE AND JURY

It is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case. It is my duty t0ogive you the rules 0f law you must apply in arriving at your verdict. You must follow and apply the rules 0f law as I give them to you, even if you believe the law is or should be different. Deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility. In doing so, you must consider all the evidence you have heard and seen in this trial, and you must disregard anything you may have heard or seen elsewhere about this case. I have not by these instructions, nor by any ruling or expression during the trial, intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or the outcome of this case. If I have said 0r done anything that would seem to indicate such an opinion, you are to disregard it...

DUTIES 0F JURORS:

"You should discuss the case with one another, and deliberate with view toward reaching agreement, if you can do so without violating your individual judgment. You should decide the case for yourself, but only after you have discussed the case with your fellow jurors and have carefully considered their views. You should not hesitate to reexamine your views and change your opinion if you become convinced they are erroneous, but you should not surrender your honest opinion simply because other jurors disagree or merely to reach verdict."

These were part of the jury instructions in STATE OF MINNESOTA v. Mohamed Mohamed Noor, a very similar case.

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-18-6859/JuryInstructions042919.pdf

So, it's not surprising in any way that the alternate had not made up her mind on all counts before going into deliberations. In fact, I would hope that she had not.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 22, 2021, 03:23:57 PM
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/04/22/dershowitz-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-to-intimidate-chauvin-jury-n1441877

Alan Dershowitz thinks it should have been declared a mistrial due to intimidation. Is he an expert?

As a fellow criminal defense attorney, I might think likewise. When I heard what she said, I was outraged and thought, "Did she just nullify a 3-week trial?" But, Judge Cahill thought otherwise, and he was the one making the decision. But he did admonish lawmakers and conceded "that Waters 'may have given' the defense grounds 'on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.'”
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: James S. Rustad on April 22, 2021, 03:26:27 PM
What convinces you that officer Chauvin would have treated a white suspect in exactly the same way that he treated George Floyd; that he would have used excessive force that caused his death?

What convinces you that he would not have?  It is those leveling the charge of racism who are responsible for proving it.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: David Garner on April 22, 2021, 03:27:30 PM
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/04/22/dershowitz-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-to-intimidate-chauvin-jury-n1441877

Alan Dershowitz thinks it should have been declared a mistrial due to intimidation. Is he an expert?

I agree that the case hinged on convincing the jury that Chauvin kneeling on him was the cause of death. I happen to think the other evidence-- the lack of damage to the throat/neck and the Fentanyl and other factors, the other video showing that Chauvin was not cutting off Floyd's breathing, etc. suggest at least reasonable doubt (again, not saying it didn't happen, just that there is reasonable doubt) about that. And without that, the most serious charges are out the window. The jury disagreed. Fine. Of course, as I mentioned way upstream, I respect the verdict. The hypersensitivity toward any hint of doubt and the assumption that those doubts must stem from racial bias if not white nationalism is somewhat bizarre, but shows just how politicized it has become. Enforcement of groupthink is the order of the day.

When I suggest this view minimizes the evidence at trial, this is precisely what I mean.  Dr. Rich directly addressed the issue of Fentanyl, carbon monoxide poisoning, heart issues, etc.  He addressed them soundly.  The defense's expert, as you would expect, refuted them.  But the problem with his refutation is the prosecution got him to admit he did not have the training or expertise to render those opinions.

Had they gotten another expert who was qualified to speak to them, it might have been more persuasive to the jury, and to me.  As I surmised earlier, my best guess is they tried and could not find someone who would say what they needed to be said.  That happens in litigation frequently, including my own.  Usually, we try to settle those cases, and in this case, Chauvin offered to plead guilty to 3rd degree murder.  But in this case the prosecution would not deal, so he had to play his best hand at trial.  Which, as we've all seen, was not a particularly good hand.

As to Dershowitz, I have a ton of respect for him and his opinions.  I don't really think he's wrong so much as I think it doesn't matter.  If the verdict is overturned on appeal on those grounds, a retrial will result in a conviction unless the defense is able to come up with a better expert to testify within his expertise, and even if they do, the prosecution will have learned much about their planned defense and be prepared to refute it.  And because of that, it might not be overturned at all, because reviewing courts are allowed to say "even though this bad thing happened that could have swayed the jury, there was ample evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict" and then uphold the conviction.  Alan Dershowitz is a great trial lawyer, a consummate defense attorney and champion for justice.  But he can't change the facts of the case.

Which is to say, I'm not defending Maxine Waters, or the trial judge who refused to sequester the jury, or the people demonstrating outside.  I'm just saying the verdict stands on its own two feet, and it is a sound one.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 22, 2021, 03:29:45 PM
Peter,

Unfortunately, sarcasm and ridicule again are manifested in your comment. That seems to be your strong suit when operating out of ignorance, in this case of what jury instructions and jury deliberations entail.
I've only served on a jury in a criminal trial once.

Then you may have heard something similar to this:

"DUTIES 0F JUDGE AND JURY

It is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case. It is my duty t0ogive you the rules 0f law you must apply in arriving at your verdict. You must follow and apply the rules 0f law as I give them to you, even if you believe the law is or should be different. Deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility. In doing so, you must consider all the evidence you have heard and seen in this trial, and you must disregard anything you may have heard or seen elsewhere about this case. I have not by these instructions, nor by any ruling or expression during the trial, intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or the outcome of this case. If I have said 0r done anything that would seem to indicate such an opinion, you are to disregard it...

DUTIES 0F JURORS:

"You should discuss the case with one another, and deliberate with view toward reaching agreement, if you can do so without violating your individual judgment. You should decide the case for yourself, but only after you have discussed the case with your fellow jurors and have carefully considered their views. You should not hesitate to reexamine your views and change your opinion if you become convinced they are erroneous, but you should not surrender your honest opinion simply because other jurors disagree or merely to reach verdict."

These were the jury instructions in STATE OF MINNESOTA v. Mohamed Mohamed Noor, a very similar case.

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-18-6859/JuryInstructions042919.pdf

So, it's not surprising in any way that the alternate had not made up her mind on all counts before going into deliberations. In fact, I would hope that she had not.
Not surprising to me, either. But it should have been surprising to you, since you were also not in on the deliberations, yet expressed incredulity that I expressed my doubts as to the most serious of the charges. Perhaps I, like this alternate juror, would have been convinced in the course of deliberations. Or maybe not. But upstream you seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and were rather intemperate in your judgments. So I was merely pointing out that such doubts were not nearly as absurd as you were making them out.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 22, 2021, 03:46:07 PM
Not surprising to me, either. But it should have been surprising to you, since you were also not in on the deliberations, yet expressed incredulity that I expressed my doubts as to the most serious of the charges. Perhaps I, like this alternate juror, would have been convinced in the course of deliberations. Or maybe not. But upstream you seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and were rather intemperate in your judgments. So I was merely pointing out that such doubts were not nearly as absurd as you were making them out.

Now your comments are getting downright Stoffregenesque.   ::) Yes, I corrected your erroneous definitions of, e.g., the intent needed and depraved heart. I did not mean to be intemperate.

Please point out where "upstream I* seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and [was] rather intemperate in [my] judgments." It seemed to me that I focused on the fact that the jurors who heard ALL of the evidence (and I did not), heard all the jury instructions including the definition and elements of the charges (I did not), and deliberated for nearly ten hours (I did not) gave the case the respect it deserved, arrived at the guilty verdict on all charges, and that, therefore, justice was done.

Thank you.

*If I put brackets around it, it italicizes the remainder and removes the "I."   :)
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 22, 2021, 04:03:23 PM
Not surprising to me, either. But it should have been surprising to you, since you were also not in on the deliberations, yet expressed incredulity that I expressed my doubts as to the most serious of the charges. Perhaps I, like this alternate juror, would have been convinced in the course of deliberations. Or maybe not. But upstream you seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and were rather intemperate in your judgments. So I was merely pointing out that such doubts were not nearly as absurd as you were making them out.

Now your comments are getting downright Stoffregenesque.   ::) Yes, I corrected your erroneous definitions of, e.g., the intent needed and depraved heart. I did not mean to be intemperate.

Please point out where "upstream I seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and [was] rather intemperate in [my] judgments." It seemed to me that I focused on the fact that the jurors who heard ALL of the evidence (and I did not), heard all the jury instructions including the definition and elements of the charges (I did not), and deliberated for nearly ten hours (I did not) gave the case the respect it deserved, arrived at the guilty verdict on all charges, and that, therefore, justice was done.

Thank you.
I said people were making Chauvin out to be a monster. Charles said Chauvin was a monster. I said that, unlike Charles, I did not think Chauvin was a monster. You mistakenly thought I was saying the jury had convicted him of being a monster, which they hadn’t, so you “corrected” a mistake that hadn’t been made.

The experts testified as to cause of death. The prosecution did a better job by all accounts. But I think the facts were not affected by the defense witness’s lack of expert status to make those determinations. Yes, the defense should have done a better job making the point. But I think the point was makeable. It is at least plausible to think that Chauvin didn’t cause Floyd’s death. Maybe the deliberations would have removed all doubt. Or maybe not.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Coach-Rev on April 22, 2021, 04:16:52 PM
Jeff simply notes that this thread ran its course before it even started, and has slipped into the usual political divisiveness that still dominates this forum.  Can we mercifully put it out of its' misery now?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 22, 2021, 04:40:45 PM
I said people were making Chauvin out to be a monster. Charles said Chauvin was a monster. I said that, unlike Charles, I did not think Chauvin was a monster. You mistakenly thought I was saying the jury had convicted him of being a monster, which they hadn’t, so you “corrected” a mistake that hadn’t been made.

What you actually wrote:

It comes far too easily to you to think of people as depraved monsters. I don't know Chauvin or much about him, but I very much doubt he is a monster of depraved heart. You and the jury disagree. He'll likely be in jail a long time. I think far lesser charges would have better reflected the real crime of misconduct/brutality.

You used the term "monster of depraved heart," i.e, modifying "monster" with "depraved heart," thereby finding an equivalence if not intensifying the term "monster." Not just a  monster, but a monster of depraved heart, thereby combining the two erroneously. You also suggested that the jury disagreed with you and found that Chauvin was a "monster of depraved heart." I responded:

You also manifest a misunderstanding of the legal definition of "depraved heart." It does not require showing that the defendant is a monster. So, the jury did not find that Chauvin is "a monster of depraved heart."

Now,

Please point out where "upstream I* seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and [was] rather intemperate in [my] judgments." It seemed to me that I focused on the fact that the jurors who heard ALL of the evidence (and I did not), heard all the jury instructions including the definition and elements of the charges (I did not), and deliberated for nearly ten hours (I did not) gave the case the respect it deserved, arrived at the guilty verdict on all charges, and that, therefore, justice was done.

Thank you.

*If I put brackets around it, it italicizes the remainder and removes the "I."   :)

Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Tom Eckstein on April 22, 2021, 05:13:55 PM
Peter, each of your comments proves again and again how clueless you are about this particular problem in our land and this discussion. Just because racism is not supported by  “law“ does not mean it is not systemic in our society.
I ask again, do you ignore the statistics about how minorities are treated by our justice system?
Do you ignore the statistics about police interaction with minorities compared with their interaction with white people?
Do you ignore the economic statistics about such things as housing loans, living conditions, employment, and related matters?
You seem to believe that just because certain laws have been removed from the books, that evil which those laws supported disappeared.
Again, read the two books mentioned upstream. Maybe then you will see how your language, unintentionally probably, echoes that of the white nationalists. And how your words are the kind of words which encourage too many people to say “there’s nothing to see here, move on.“

Especially Charles, but also others who are interested, below is a 4 minute interview with a former U.S. police officer who has a take on the Derek Chauvin trial that is refreshing!  This interview shows that, as Peter says, Charles is looking at this case and many other things through a particular "lens" that lumps everything into RACISM.  Here's the link to the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6wNpsPEso (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6wNpsPEso)
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 22, 2021, 05:23:12 PM
Peter, each of your comments proves again and again how clueless you are about this particular problem in our land and this discussion. Just because racism is not supported by  “law“ does not mean it is not systemic in our society.
I ask again, do you ignore the statistics about how minorities are treated by our justice system?
Do you ignore the statistics about police interaction with minorities compared with their interaction with white people?
Do you ignore the economic statistics about such things as housing loans, living conditions, employment, and related matters?
You seem to believe that just because certain laws have been removed from the books, that evil which those laws supported disappeared.
Again, read the two books mentioned upstream. Maybe then you will see how your language, unintentionally probably, echoes that of the white nationalists. And how your words are the kind of words which encourage too many people to say “there’s nothing to see here, move on.“

Especially Charles, but also others who are interested, below is a 4 minute interview with a former U.S. police officer who has a take on the Derek Chauvin trial that is refreshing!  This interview shows that, as Peter says, Charles is looking at this case any many other things through a particular "lens" that lumps everything into RACISM.  Here's the link to the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6wNpsPEso (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6wNpsPEso)

Wow! What do you really think, Officer Tatum?   ;)

Thanks, Tom.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Tom Eckstein on April 22, 2021, 05:34:07 PM
Also, did anyone here hear about the Tony Timpa case?  My guess is "no."  Why not?  Tony was white.  His death was very similar to what happened to George Floyd.  See this 2 minute video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVvDu-K3Qg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVvDu-K3Qg)

If Tony Timpa had been black, do you think we would have heard MORE about this case?  If so, why?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 22, 2021, 05:39:16 PM
Also, did anyone here hear about the Tony Timpa case?  My guess is "no."  Why not?  Tony was white.  His death was very similar to what happened to George Floyd.  See this 2 minute video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVvDu-K3Qg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVvDu-K3Qg)

If Tony Timpa had been black, do you think we would have heard MORE about this case?  If so, why?

Cracking jokes and laughing. And back on the job.  :o
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Tom Eckstein on April 22, 2021, 05:41:38 PM
Also, did anyone here hear about the Tony Timpa case?  My guess is "no."  Why not?  Tony was white.  His death was very similar to what happened to George Floyd.  See this 2 minute video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVvDu-K3Qg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVvDu-K3Qg)

If Tony Timpa had been black, do you think we would have heard MORE about this case?  If so, why?

Cracking jokes and laughing. And back on the job.  :o

Don, I agree, this is SAD!!  But equally sad is the fact that we heard NOTHING about this in the  media compared to the George Floyd incident.  Also, no riots for Tony Timpa!
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Michael Slusser on April 22, 2021, 05:55:13 PM
I had not heard about the Tony Timpa case. There's a Cato Institute blogpost on it, https://www.cato.org/blog/cops-who-killed-tony-timpa-are-unfit-serve-courts-ensure-they-keep-their-jobs (https://www.cato.org/blog/cops-who-killed-tony-timpa-are-unfit-serve-courts-ensure-they-keep-their-jobs) and it is shocking. The description of the death is very similar to the death of George Floyd.
Quote
Restraining Tony’s legs and putting him in police cuffs, the officers laid him prone and kneeled on his body. They ignored his cries that they were killing him. They brushed off his agonal respiration as “snoring.” They cracked juvenile jokes to one another as Tony slid into unconsciousness: “It’s time for school! Wake up!” remarks one officer when Tony stops responding. After 14 minutes of compacting Tony’s lungs as he begged for his life until he could no longer speak, officers finally turned Tony over to a trained paramedic. “He’s dead,” the paramedic declares almost immediately after Tony is lifted into the ambulance.

The Cato Institute has  filed an amicus brief in the attempt to have the case reopened, and to challenge the doctrine of "qualified immunity" for police acting in the line of duty.
Quote
As we argue in our brief, the ill‐​defined qualified immunity standard is regularly misconstrued by lower courts in ways that put even the most reprehensible police behavior beyond reproach. The result is rapidly declining public confidence that makes police work more difficult and good talent harder to recruit.

Thanks, Pr. Eckstein.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: James_Gale on April 22, 2021, 06:04:42 PM
I had not heard about the Tony Timpa case. There's a Cato Institute blogpost on it, https://www.cato.org/blog/cops-who-killed-tony-timpa-are-unfit-serve-courts-ensure-they-keep-their-jobs (https://www.cato.org/blog/cops-who-killed-tony-timpa-are-unfit-serve-courts-ensure-they-keep-their-jobs) and it is shocking. The description of the death is very similar to the death of George Floyd.
Quote
Restraining Tony’s legs and putting him in police cuffs, the officers laid him prone and kneeled on his body. They ignored his cries that they were killing him. They brushed off his agonal respiration as “snoring.” They cracked juvenile jokes to one another as Tony slid into unconsciousness: “It’s time for school! Wake up!” remarks one officer when Tony stops responding. After 14 minutes of compacting Tony’s lungs as he begged for his life until he could no longer speak, officers finally turned Tony over to a trained paramedic. “He’s dead,” the paramedic declares almost immediately after Tony is lifted into the ambulance.

The Cato Institute has  filed an amicus brief in the attempt to have the case reopened, and to challenge the doctrine of "qualified immunity" for police acting in the line of duty.
Quote
As we argue in our brief, the ill‐​defined qualified immunity standard is regularly misconstrued by lower courts in ways that put even the most reprehensible police behavior beyond reproach. The result is rapidly declining public confidence that makes police work more difficult and good talent harder to recruit.

Thanks, Pr. Eckstein.

Peace,
Michael


I think that the effort to eliminate or redefine the qualified-immunity doctrine could succeed. Justice Thomas has indicated his belief that the doctrine needs to be re-examined. Given the right case, justices across the spectrum could well agree.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 22, 2021, 07:01:09 PM
Peter, each of your comments proves again and again how clueless you are about this particular problem in our land and this discussion. Just because racism is not supported by  “law“ does not mean it is not systemic in our society.
I ask again, do you ignore the statistics about how minorities are treated by our justice system?
Do you ignore the statistics about police interaction with minorities compared with their interaction with white people?
Do you ignore the economic statistics about such things as housing loans, living conditions, employment, and related matters?
You seem to believe that just because certain laws have been removed from the books, that evil which those laws supported disappeared.
Again, read the two books mentioned upstream. Maybe then you will see how your language, unintentionally probably, echoes that of the white nationalists. And how your words are the kind of words which encourage too many people to say “there’s nothing to see here, move on.“

Especially Charles, but also others who are interested, below is a 4 minute interview with a former U.S. police officer who has a take on the Derek Chauvin trial that is refreshing!  This interview shows that, as Peter says, Charles is looking at this case and many other things through a particular "lens" that lumps everything into RACISM.  Here's the link to the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6wNpsPEso (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6wNpsPEso)

Looks like he was on FOX last night too.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/brandon-tatum-leftist-lies-about-police-hurting-black-people?fbclid=IwAR3SvQiC32aCXKLXDUgQ3e_L2T7nhiW4-QsiniX6EU-njwGskPMQFkPqBBI
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on April 22, 2021, 07:16:14 PM
What convinces you that officer Chauvin would have treated a white suspect in exactly the same way that he treated George Floyd; that he would have used excessive force that caused his death?

What convinces you that he would not have?  It is those leveling the charge of racism who are responsible for proving it.


I don't have access to reports of the ways officer Chauvin treated other suspects during his years of service. A review of them with race factored in, could illustrate whether or not he treated blacks differently than whites. Apparently, the DOJ will be looking at such records of the whole department. Not just for racisms, but also for excessive force.


We do know from statistics, that blacks are arrested and in prison at a higher proportion than they exist in the population. Racism could be a factor in that (arrests and convictions at a higher rate because they are black). It is not likely to be the only factor. Economics (poorer people are not able to hire the better lawyers). The percentage of lower economic people in prison may be higher than the percentage of them in the population, too.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on April 22, 2021, 07:24:40 PM
Also, did anyone here hear about the Tony Timpa case?  My guess is "no."  Why not?  Tony was white.  His death was very similar to what happened to George Floyd.  See this 2 minute video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVvDu-K3Qg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVvDu-K3Qg)

If Tony Timpa had been black, do you think we would have heard MORE about this case?  If so, why?


If a bystander had videoed the events and put in on social media, we certainly would have heard more about this case. That, besides the race issue, is what put George Floyd's case in the spotlight. It wasn't the police footage that caused the demonstrations.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: James S. Rustad on April 23, 2021, 12:14:21 PM
Also, did anyone here hear about the Tony Timpa case?  My guess is "no."  Why not?  Tony was white.  His death was very similar to what happened to George Floyd.  See this 2 minute video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVvDu-K3Qg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utVvDu-K3Qg)

If Tony Timpa had been black, do you think we would have heard MORE about this case?  If so, why?

If a bystander had videoed the events and put in on social media, we certainly would have heard more about this case. That, besides the race issue, is what put George Floyd's case in the spotlight. It wasn't the police footage that caused the demonstrations.

Both cases had video.
Both cases have that video readily available.
Both cases resulted in death at the hands of police.

I don't see that much difference between the two cases other than the time between when it occurred and when it first hit social media.  It was then essentially ignored other than the original Facebook post.  Remember that there is not a lot of bystander video in the Floyd case so widespread attention doesn't seem to depend on lots of video.
https://www.facebook.com/dallasmorningnews/videos/353107168718795/

Maybe you'd prefer the case of Angelo Quinto.  After all, this case has bystander video (linked in the Reason article).
https://reason.com/2021/02/26/angelo-quinto-death-police-knelt-neck-mental-health-antioch-mayor-lamar-thorpe/
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 23, 2021, 06:25:05 PM
On the other hand,

Monster: "one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monster

https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-derek-chauvin-2017-arrest-14-year-old-boy-report

"Just like with Floyd, Chauvin used an unreasonable amount of force without regard for the need for that level of force or the victim's well-being. Just like with Floyd, when the child was slow to comply with Chauvin and [the other officer's] instructions, Chauvin grabbed the child by the throat, forced him to the ground in the prone position, and placed his knee on the child's neck with so much force that the child began to cry out in pain and tell Chauvin he could not breathe."

Uh oh!
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on April 23, 2021, 07:17:43 PM
On the other hand,

Monster: "one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monster

https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-derek-chauvin-2017-arrest-14-year-old-boy-report

"Just like with Floyd, Chauvin used an unreasonable amount of force without regard for the need for that level of force or the victim's well-being. Just like with Floyd, when the child was slow to comply with Chauvin and [the other officer's] instructions, Chauvin grabbed the child by the throat, forced him to the ground in the prone position, and placed his knee on the child's neck with so much force that the child began to cry out in pain and tell Chauvin he could not breathe."

Uh oh!

Negligent retention, anyone?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on April 23, 2021, 07:49:40 PM
On the other hand,

Monster: "one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monster

https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-derek-chauvin-2017-arrest-14-year-old-boy-report

"Just like with Floyd, Chauvin used an unreasonable amount of force without regard for the need for that level of force or the victim's well-being. Just like with Floyd, when the child was slow to comply with Chauvin and [the other officer's] instructions, Chauvin grabbed the child by the throat, forced him to the ground in the prone position, and placed his knee on the child's neck with so much force that the child began to cry out in pain and tell Chauvin he could not breathe."

Uh oh!

Negligent retention, anyone?

They already settled for 27 million.    🙄
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on April 23, 2021, 08:53:44 PM
On the other hand,

Monster: "one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monster

https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-derek-chauvin-2017-arrest-14-year-old-boy-report

"Just like with Floyd, Chauvin used an unreasonable amount of force without regard for the need for that level of force or the victim's well-being. Just like with Floyd, when the child was slow to comply with Chauvin and [the other officer's] instructions, Chauvin grabbed the child by the throat, forced him to the ground in the prone position, and placed his knee on the child's neck with so much force that the child began to cry out in pain and tell Chauvin he could not breathe."

Uh oh!

Negligent retention, anyone?

They already settled for 27 million.    🙄

If these allegations are proven correct the city got a bargain.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Norman Teigen on April 27, 2021, 01:35:05 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/25/us/police-use-of-force.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

There is a legal doctrine which is worthy of consideration in this context.  These issues deal with the problem of  'split second decisions.'


Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: James S. Rustad on April 27, 2021, 05:08:56 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/25/us/police-use-of-force.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

There is a legal doctrine which is worthy of consideration in this context.  These issues deal with the problem of  'split second decisions.'

I disagree that "split second decisions" applies when an officer chokes someone to death.  It takes quite a while to do.

In any case, while police certainly need something like qualified immunity, the limits to it need re-examining given some of the acts that qualified immunity has been stretched to cover.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 27, 2021, 09:26:01 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/25/us/police-use-of-force.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

There is a legal doctrine which is worthy of consideration in this context.  These issues deal with the problem of  'split second decisions.'

I disagree that "split second decisions" applies when an officer chokes someone to death.  It takes quite a while to do.

In any case, while police certainly need something like qualified immunity, the limits to it need re-examining given some of the acts that qualified immunity has been stretched to cover.
The problem with qualified immunity, though, is that it clearly separates the government agent from the citizen in terms of rights. Not even soldiers on the battlefield have immunity from prosecution when they commit atrocities. On the other hand, who would bother to confront a criminal if there were serious consequences for getting anything about the encounter wrong and no consequences to oneself for simply letting the criminal go his way? It is quite a conundrum.

Lack of police protection is almost the definition of a bad neighborhood. Anyone with the wherewithal leaves. The neighborhood by default becomes poor and the citizens live at the mercy of criminals. While police need to be accountable, and qualified immunity is perhaps not sufficiently qualified or shouldn't exist at all, we ought to asking ourselves what the demonization of the police does to the future. It is a high stress, dangerous, low paying job. The general respect of the public is one of the rewards. Right now being a police officer is probably very much like serving as a pastor in a congregation rife with alligators and general anti-clericalism-- not a good way to recruit seminarians. 
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Norman Teigen on May 02, 2021, 07:21:34 AM
From the Washington Post:   "If there was a sense of relief after a jury convicted former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin of the murder of George Floyd, it was short-lived. Seems like every day in this country, there is another new — usually Black — person brutalized by police; another new video showing disturbing and dehumanizing actions by those who have sworn to protect and serve. The legitimacy of policing is being challenged in ways never seen before, and that underscores the urgency of reform. Not only will it better safeguard the public, but it also will help the majority of officers who do their jobs lawfully and conscientiously.
"Much of the work to be done must be done at the local and state levels. But Congress needs to do its part: In his address Wednesday night, President Biden called on Congress to pass a police reform bill no later than May 25, which will mark the one year since the death of Floyd. The House for the second time passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in March, mostly along party lines, but it remains stalled in the Senate, where "Republicans favor a competing plan by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) that is narrower in scope.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on May 03, 2021, 11:33:56 AM
No, it was not a "report," Mr. Teigen. It was an over-the-top opinion piece.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on May 03, 2021, 11:37:28 AM
No, it was not a "report," Mr. Teigen. It was an over-the-top opinion piece.

Those aren't the same things?  ::)

Jeremy
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on May 03, 2021, 11:41:57 AM
No, it was not a "report," Mr. Teigen. It was an over-the-top opinion piece.

Those aren't the same things?  ::)

Jeremy

 ;D
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on May 03, 2021, 12:25:40 PM
And of course the “opinion” doesn’t matter because it conflicts with your favorite way of looking at things. At least I take the views of you people seriously.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 03, 2021, 01:16:29 PM
And of course the “opinion” doesn’t matter because it conflicts with your favorite way of looking at things. At least I take the views of you people seriously.
The point was the distinction between news and opinion. When citing a newspaper, calling an opinion piece a report is deceptive.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on May 03, 2021, 01:20:18 PM
Well, heck, let’s call it a report of an opinion. Problem solved, you’re welcome.
Anyway, in a flash of inspiration last night, I think I came up with a solution. Since everybody else is doing it, let’s allow the police to work from home.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 03, 2021, 01:28:55 PM
Well, heck, let’s call it a report of an opinion. Problem solved, you’re welcome.
Anyway, in a flash of inspiration last night, I think I came up with a solution. Since everybody else is doing it, let’s allow the police to work from home.
If you have find yourself in physical danger and in need of an officer, please accept my apologies in advance for the amount of schadenfreude you will notice drifting toward from the southeast. You're like the pathetic celebrities and politicians who walk with their security details to their big speech calling for defunding the police.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Michael Slusser on May 03, 2021, 01:50:19 PM
Up the thread a bit, Pr. Speckhard said,
Quote
The problem with qualified immunity, though, is that it clearly separates the government agent from the citizen in terms of rights. Not even soldiers on the battlefield have immunity from prosecution when they commit atrocities. On the other hand, who would bother to confront a criminal if there were serious consequences for getting anything about the encounter wrong and no consequences to oneself for simply letting the criminal go his way? It is quite a conundrum.
     Some of the military here should correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when US forces are in another country, under the Status of Forces agreement with that country [thanks, Pr. Hannah] Rules of Engagement, they often are immune from prosecution for criminal acts against civilians in civilian courts. I've read that about Okinawa; and when President Obama pulled US troops from Iraq, it was at least partly because Iraq wanted to be able to try soldiers in Iraqi courts for crimes committed against civilians and we wouldn't waive immunity.
     Today in the Supreme Court, a West Point cadet was barred from suing the Federal Government for the abuse to which she was subjected by a fellow cadet. Justice Thomas wrote a stinging dissent to the denial of certiorari, asserting that such immunity from suit needed to be reconsidered and probably changed. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/05/justices-turn-down-cadets-attempt-to-sue-government-over-sexual-assault/ (https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/05/justices-turn-down-cadets-attempt-to-sue-government-over-sexual-assault/)
     There's quite a bit of qualified immunity for government agents out there.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on May 03, 2021, 01:57:10 PM
For heaven sake’s, Peter, can you really be so humorless! It was a joke.
You have never heard me say anything positive here about “defunding“ the police. I think I have said here  that it is an unfortunate phrase, and that it should not be taken to the extreme.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: John_Hannah on May 03, 2021, 02:00:19 PM
     Some of the military here should correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when US forces are in another country under Rules of Engagement, they often are immune from prosecution for criminal acts against civilians in civilian courts. I've read that about Okinawa; and when President Obama pulled US troops from Iraq, it was at least partly because Iraq wanted to be able to try soldiers in Iraqi courts for crimes committed against civilians and we wouldn't waive immunity.

Peace,
Michael

You are thinking of the "Status of Forces Agreement" rather than "Rules of Engagement." For that the agreement with every nation is different.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Michael Slusser on May 03, 2021, 02:18:36 PM
     Some of the military here should correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when US forces are in another country under Rules of Engagement, they often are immune from prosecution for criminal acts against civilians in civilian courts. I've read that about Okinawa; and when President Obama pulled US troops from Iraq, it was at least partly because Iraq wanted to be able to try soldiers in Iraqi courts for crimes committed against civilians and we wouldn't waive immunity.

Peace,
Michael

You are thinking of the "Status of Forces Agreement" rather than "Rules of Engagement." For that the agreement with every nation is different.

Peace, JOHN
Thank you, John. Very helpful.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 03, 2021, 02:55:05 PM
Well, heck, let’s call it a report of an opinion. Problem solved, you’re welcome.
Anyway, in a flash of inspiration last night, I think I came up with a solution. Since everybody else is doing it, let’s allow the police to work from home.
If you have find yourself in physical danger and in need of an officer, please accept my apologies in advance for the amount of schadenfreude you will notice drifting toward from the southeast. You're like the pathetic celebrities and politicians who walk with their security details to their big speech calling for defunding the police.


For heaven sake’s, Peter, can you really be so humorless! It was a joke.
You have never heard me say anything positive here about “defunding“ the police. I think I have said here  that it is an unfortunate phrase, and that it should not be taken to the extreme.



Observation about humor. Is it in these enlightened times acceptable in polite (i.e. liberal/progressive) society to mock, denigrate, or poke fun at POC (People of Color), Blacks, Hispanics, Asiatics, or Jews? (Well maybe Jews if you're a Democrat, you can just pass it off as anti-Israeli.) If called on it does it suffice to pass it off as a joke and the complainer as humorless? There making it a joke makes it all better and if someone takes offense, it is their fault for having no sense of humor, right? So suggesting that the police should just stay home is not anti-police since you call it a joke?
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 03, 2021, 03:11:58 PM
For heaven sake’s, Peter, can you really be so humorless! It was a joke.
You have never heard me say anything positive here about “defunding“ the police. I think I have said here  that it is an unfortunate phrase, and that it should not be taken to the extreme.
I know it was a joke. Mine was a retort to a joke. It apparently hit too close to home.

It isn't an unfortunate phrase that shouldn't be taken to an extreme, it is an accurate description of a stupid idea that shouldn't even be taken seriously, much less extremely so.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Charles Austin on May 03, 2021, 05:20:42 PM
How about “partially defund the police”? Take some of the money used to turn police units into combat units and swat teams and put it towards the kind of community health measures, social services and aids to law-enforcement that don’t involve military power.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 03, 2021, 05:42:26 PM
How about “partially defund the police”? Take some of the money used to turn police units into combat units and swat teams and put it towards the kind of community health measures, social services and aids to law-enforcement that don’t involve military power.
I’d agree with that in general but I don’t think it would make any difference in any of the high profile cases people are protesting. Most of them have been routine calls or stops involving officers with regular sidearms. No SWAT teams, combat arms, and what have you. I know someone who is on a local police force SWAT team and I don’t think it is ever used except in standoff situations potentially involving hostages or on busts of suspects known to be armed and dangerous. They don’t just roam around the streets or respond to 911 calls with SWAT teams or combat arms.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 03, 2021, 05:47:39 PM
How about “partially defund the police”? Take some of the money used to turn police units into combat units and swat teams and put it towards the kind of community health measures, social services and aids to law-enforcement that don’t involve military power.
May not be a bad idea. An increase in the flexibility of response by police departments and adding individuals with specialized training for some of the situations encountered by police is not a bad idea. In the small Nebraska city where I pastored some years ago, the local police department adopted the policy of responding to domestic disturbance calls by first arriving on the scene and making sure that violence wasn't breaking out and then calling in a volunteer police chaplain to continue the response.


However, social workers or mental health professionals may not always be able to take care of the situation. For example, the 1997 North Hollywood band robbery shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout) needed advanced fire power. The police ended up getting some guns from a local gun shop to manage the situation.


One problem with using slogans like "Defund the Police" when you don't really mean it is that people likely will take you at your word.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: David Garner on May 03, 2021, 07:18:17 PM
How about “partially defund the police”? Take some of the money used to turn police units into combat units and swat teams and put it towards the kind of community health measures, social services and aids to law-enforcement that don’t involve military power.
May not be a bad idea. An increase in the flexibility of response by police departments and adding individuals with specialized training for some of the situations encountered by police is not a bad idea. In the small Nebraska city where I pastored some years ago, the local police department adopted the policy of responding to domestic disturbance calls by first arriving on the scene and making sure that violence wasn't breaking out and then calling in a volunteer police chaplain to continue the response.


However, social workers or mental health professionals may not always be able to take care of the situation. For example, the 1997 North Hollywood band robbery shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout) needed advanced fire power. The police ended up getting some guns from a local gun shop to manage the situation.


One problem with using slogans like "Defund the Police" when you don't really mean it is that people likely will take you at your word.

While it is true that the LAPD had to retrieve weapons from a local gun shop, something that often goes untold (and best I can tell, is not included in the wiki link, though it is hinted at where it discusses the gunman dying of blood loss from "multiple gunshots to the legs") is the fact that the SWAT team's tactics, not their equipment, saved the day.  Knowing that a bullet when it strikes a hard object will ricochet away from the hard object 8 to 10 inches or so and remain at that flight until gravity takes over, the SWAT officers shot at the pavement in front of the vehicle the robbers were hiding behind.  This, ultimately, stopped the fight.

Jeff Cooper was once quoted as saying "this is a problem that could have been solved by a well trained 12 year old and two shots from a thirty-thirty."  He was refuting the idea that the LAPD needed .45 ACP handguns like the SWAT officers had.  While I think that's simplistic, the reality is body armor is designed to stop handgun bullets, so shooting handguns at body armor is not likely to have the desired effect, so Cooper was right in that assessment -- no handgun round was going to stop them if the officers shot center mass.  The SWAT officers had rifles, of course, but it was handgun fire under the vehicle that stopped them.  Mostly because the bad guys did not have body armor on their legs.
Title: Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
Post by: Richard Johnson on May 04, 2021, 06:40:18 AM
I know someone who is on a local police force SWAT team and I don’t think it is ever used except in standoff situations potentially involving hostages or on busts of suspects known to be armed and dangerous. They don’t just roam around the streets or respond to 911 calls with SWAT teams or combat arms.

Can't resist telling the story. My son was in middle school. His soccer (or whatever) practice was cancelled, and he walked down to church to get a ride home, but I'd already left. He found an open window and climbed in to call me to come get him; I told him to start walking down town and I'd meet him there. While he was there, someone in the apartments next door had seen him climb in and called the church. He answered, and told them it was OK, then left to meet me. When I came back at 7 for council, all the council members were gathered in a knot in one corner of the parking lot, and the police had the building surrounded. I asked what was going on. "Apparently there's an intruder in the church, and the police SWAT team is looking for him." I cautiously approached the officer in charge, who warned me to stay back. I explained who I was and what I thought had happened, and I apologized profusely. "Oh, don't worry about it," he said, "we don't get a lot of practice, so this was a good exercise."

As for the police, I actually think funding should be significantly increased so that they can pay higher salaries and provide better training.