Shame on law enforcement


Well-Known Member
The dead person was found to be high on Fentanyl and had methamphetamine in his body as well.

He had quite a long rap sheet too.
A video exists of him fighting with the officers from the back of the police car. Hmmmmmm.......a stoned perp doesn't want to go back into the big house again I guess, I don't know. The fight ends up outside the police car as a result.

Is putting your body weight and knee on someones neck to restrain them an acceptable tactic across police forces in Canada and the US ? They certainly do that shit up here, and it's usually the white guys on the ground getting cuffed because they're whacked out on opiods. It's a totally unacceptable manner of holding someone down IMHO. Now, I don't like cops per say as a rule. Here in Canada they like to taser you right from the get go, and we kill quite a few folks like that. This was certainly a preventable situation by all the parties involved however, starting with the actions of George Floyd.

The riots are orchestrated and being set up by professional thugs from the left wing. The black people I know and have sat beside or worked with for years are not stupid people who would run out and burn down the cities in which they live because of a guy like George Floyd.
The liberals on this forum wont get it.

kc ub'ing!

He had quite a long rap sheet too
Irrelevant! Why bring it up? Do you believe George Floyd deserved to die? Get your shit together man!

The wrap sheet you shared shows no infractions since 2007. Perhaps he turned his life around. None of the crimes listed warranted capital punishment either.

Another Uber Driver

Well-Known Member
Life without parole for the Minnesota cop is called for, if not the death penalty.
He will not get the death penalty on the Minnesota charges, as Minnesota banned it in 1911. If any of them ever do face certain Federal charges, the death penalty could come into play.

Charging the other three is warranted, but as the DA is saying, it will be tough to get a conviction. Especially as Chauvin was a senior officer. The 3 cops' defence will likely be that they could not disobey or challenge a superior officer, and were following orders to restrain the crowd.

They will also claim that the chain of command in police forces is essential in order for them to be effective. Having junior officers being able to challenge senior officers in the middle of conflict situations would not be acceptable - it wouldn't work.

So it will take a very good prosecutor to get around this defence.
(emphases added)

It already has started. I have quoted relevant excerpts from the link and emphasised some.

One of the four former Minneapolis officers charged in George Floyd’s death tried to warn his fellow officers during the arrest, his attorney claimed in court Thursday.
J. Alexander Kueng hadn’t yet completed his third full shift as a police officer when the deadly arrest occurred, his attorney Tom Plunkett claimed. Plunkett says Kueng allegedly told his fellow officers as they were detaining Floyd, “You shouldn’t do that."

Lane was also new to the job, only on the force for four days when the incident occurred, his attorney Earl Gray claimed. His lawyer said that Lane twice asked Chauvin, a training officer, “Shall we roll him over?” He also expressed concern that Floyd may be in “delirium.”
“What is my client supposed to do other than follow what the training officer said?” Gray said in court.

Lane asked, “Should we roll him on his side?”
“No, staying put where we got him,” Chauvin responded, according to the complaint. “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever,” Lane allegedly said. “That’s why we have him on his stomach,” Chauvin responded, according to the complaint.

It’s not easy I agree, but I think that the public will tip the scales to make it more just. a compelling argument + current environment = conviction.
You can not convict some one legally on public opinion. You must convict him according to the law. To be sure, people have been convicted on public opinion, but those are not legal convictions. If there is any flaw in the prosecution's case, it will come out at some point and the conviction could be reversed at the Federal level, once the case gets out of Minnesota.

Despite that, I would bet that the governor and several other prominent and connected people in Minnesota will want to put in a fix. They fear rioting if those police walk. For the polices' lawyers' part, they will try to move the trial to Brainerd, Hibbing, Duluth or anywhere as far out of Minneapolis as they can get it. They have a good argument that their clients will not get a fair trial in Minneapolis or across the river in St. Paul. Usually, the police go for a bench trial. If I were a lawyer for any of those police, I would expect an attempt to rig the trial, so especially if I could get the trial out of Minneapolis/St. Paul, I would go for a jury trial. It is harder to fix twelve than it is one.

Those police in Maryland involved in the death of Freddie Gray went for a bench trial because they knew that Governor Hogan would not attempt a fix. The judge will apply the law as it is written, unless there is a fix. Juries can and will ignore the law and convict or not on feelings, despite a judge's instructions. A jury's ignoring a judge's instructions is, however, a reversible error.

Ellison has stated that he will prosecute those police according to the law and that they will be convicted according to the law. If he gets his conviction legally, it is more difficult for the defence to win an appeal. If he can get his conviction according to the law, they swing. If he does not, they could walk, eventually. I have little doubt that Ellison knows this.

Carry on with your virtueal signaling now.

Those two actually have been mentioned elsewhere on this forum. Still, if you fail to conform to the popular sentiment, you are automatically designated as a "racist", among other superlatives.