Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Chauvin Is Not A Sympathetic Character 52

Journal by smittyoneeach
Chauvin trial break

On Friday Minneapolis Police Department Lieutenant Richard Zimmerman took the stand. He is the departmentâ(TM)s senior homicide investigator and its most senior officer period. He was called to the scene on the evening of George Floydâ(TM)s death. Having subsequently watched bodycam videos of the restraint of George Floyd, he found it unreasonable and excessive in relevant respects under department policy.

Zimmerman is an extremely credible witness. He seems to me like a character who might have walked off the TV series Homicide. Defense counsel Eric Nelson found no meaningful avenue of cross examination with him. He is a strong witness in support of the prosecution.

--

One hopes the reaction to the verdict is accepted calmly and rationally.
Alas, anything short of capital punishment for Chauvin is likely to be deemed insufficient.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chauvin Is Not A Sympathetic Character More

Chauvin Is Not A Sympathetic Character

Comments Filter:

  • The job does not attract the best characters... It is not sound policy to give the minions so much power

    • Maybe they can put Derek Chauvin's face on the vaccine passports.
      They installed President Potted Plant. . .
      All ahead Full Tilt Boogie, say I.

      • They installed President Potted Plant. . .

        Potted Plant - Wally George... DNC/GOP, babe. Not even the commies can conjure up 98% of the vote like these guys do. Even Xi (you know, that guy in China?) got only 75%.

        • All numbers are morally equivalent. If we can predict who will not vote, make a ballot appear for them, and pencil-whip election security laws, then we will have more time to accuse conservatives of racism for caring about pollbook integrity.

          • :-) That's not what they care about. They're only looking to protect their advantage by making voting as difficult as possible via the entire registration process, limited polling places in specifically targeted areas, and hours, etc. Quite the spectacle with the "other" side injecting their own poison into the mess to keep anything from being done.

            • It's quite possible that your speculations are true, but I just doubt it.
              I've got 10 years experience as an election officer in an admittedly well-funded county.
              I can get to "maybe" on your accusations.

              • Yeah, unless you traveled around a bit, I would say your perspective is somewhat limited.

                Not accusations, they are observations. Long lines do not lie

                • Lie about what? Are you implying that there is some specific requirement for speed at casting a secure ballot?

                  • I see a requirement for sufficient polling places, among other things, in all neighborhoods, not just a few.

                    • What is this famous requirement? Please be specific. As it turns out, this is (not jerking your chain here) at the heart of my tentative doctoral thesis.

                    • Not gonna play that game. You know what's happening

                    • I can't speak for him, but if I were to write the rules I would start with a rather straightforward requirement that every precinct - at least within a congressional district - should have the same voting machines and the same number of machines per capita. The per capita should be based solely on the number of people who were counted in the most recent census who would be old enough to vote in that current election.
                    • If I knew, I could have predicted President Potted Plant.
                    • This is not a bad idea at all, but our system is neither directed nor funded in the top-down manner required to even try such a standardization.
                    • Putting it at the district level - hence allowing districts to decide for themselves what to standardize on - should relieve some of the top-down requirement, should it not? If district 7 wants touch screens and has the capital to but them, they can do it. If district 4 wants mechanical machines and can get them, they can do that instead. The only requirement that traverses districts would be the per capita aspect, though the number itself could vary somewhat between districts as long as all precincts wi

                    • I did, it was easy. It's still all DNC/GOP. It's their game.

                    • The States are Constitutionally empowered to manage their elections.
                      There really are 50 distinct systems, and equipment does vary a great deal from county to county.
                      The conversation focuses on how much you want to spend making the entire system tidy.
                    • [hat tip]
                    • I do believe we need certain floors to ensure that people can vote. However I support putting most of the final terms being set at a district level once the floors are established nationwide. On a general note I fully support voting by mail - with no excuse required from the voter - as well as early voting (under the same terms). We do have unique geography and demographics in our country, so it isn't really reasonable for all districts to be able to get all their voters through the system in a single da

                    • On a general note I fully support voting by mail - with no excuse required from the voter - as well as early voting (under the same terms).

                      There are some logical reasons for absentee and early voting, e.g. deployed military.
                      That said, there are two specific issues that I find absent from the "let's change everything crowd":

                      • Voter privacy: when people cast ballots at my polling place, they cannot be interfered with. If they need support, there is an assistance form to validate that the voter wants this p

                    • On a general note I fully support voting by mail - with no excuse required from the voter - as well as early voting (under the same terms).

                      There are some logical reasons for absentee and early voting, e.g. deployed military.

                      There wasn't a single race on my ballot that I hadn't already decided which way I wanted to vote at least a full month before election day. What's wrong with letting me vote early? Granted I do recall one election in my state where someone on the ballot died in the last 1-2 months prior to the election - which created a special situation - but otherwise I don't see a problem with voting early or voting by mail.

                      Voter privacy: when people cast ballots at my polling place, they cannot be interfered with. If they need support, there is an assistance form to validate that the voter wants this person to help them with whatever assistance they require.

                      How many people who vote live alone? I know I talk politics with my wife and sons all the time

                    • How many people who vote live alone?

                      What the WHAT difference does that make? I'm talking about the privacy, safety, and non-coercion of the ballot casting.

                      Please tell me what you think was farcical about the 2020 election, in specific terms.

                      If they thought Trump's claims baseless, they would have given him his day in court. A court case with everyone under oath, properly conducted, would have settled the matter. Didn't happen, and you know perfectly well why not.
                      Now, I blow a kiss your direction and we pra

                    • How many people who vote live alone?

                      What the WHAT difference does that make? I'm talking about the privacy, safety, and non-coercion of the ballot casting.

                      My apologies then for misreading your argument. I thought you were concerned that people voting by mail would be influenced by people they live with; my counter to that is that people who vote in person still interact with people regularly who have opinions as well.

                      Please tell me what you think was farcical about the 2020 election, in specific terms.

                      If they thought Trump's claims baseless, they would have given him his day in court.

                      I didn't know the federal and state courts were obligated to hear every case that is presented in front of them, regardless of merit. We often hear about cases that the US SCOTUS declines to hear for various reasons (including lack of merit).

                    • I didn't know the federal and state courts were obligated to hear every case that is presented in front of them, regardless of merit. We often hear about cases that the US SCOTUS declines to hear for various reasons (including lack of merit). There were plenty of other frivolous cases over the years - presented by people of all political leanings - that were also declined by courts across the country.
                      ...
                      When the filings are so lacking in substance, what reason is there to presume that the people who filed

                    • I didn't know the federal and state courts were obligated to hear every case that is presented in front of them, regardless of merit. We often hear about cases that the US SCOTUS declines to hear for various reasons (including lack of merit). There were plenty of other frivolous cases over the years - presented by people of all political leanings - that were also declined by courts across the country. ...

                      When the filings are so lacking in substance, what reason is there to presume that the people who filed it actually have something meritorious to present? It should be recognized that not only were many of the cases rejected by justices with notably conservative philosophy, the filings sent to the SCOTUS - which leans heavily the same way - were also rejected. ...

                      Because not one of them presented a compelling argument for a hearing.

                      Peradventure we could stipulate that if the sitting President of the United States brings a lawsuit, especially at the level where the SCOTUS is the original authority (suits between federal branches) and the SCOTUS says "Talk to the hand", then there are shenanigans afoot.

                      You're looking for bad actors when there are none to be found. The rejection of the argument by the SCOTUS had nothing to do with the identity behind the lawsuit and everything to do with the substance behind it. They evaluated it and correctly found that there was indeed no substance at all, and rejected it as such. Being as the most conservative SCOTUS in decades - and many conservative district courts - rejected the suits, you should be looking for substance rather than conspiracy. Instead you're try

                    • Roberts is a wholly pwned piece of work, and his place in infamy is assured.
                    • Roberts was carefully vetted by the conservative right before GWB was allowed to nominate him. We've seen that some conservatives exhibit a very curious case of amnesia when trying to recall the name of the president who served after Clinton and before Lawnchair, but you should be able to remember him and his appointment of the Chief Justice.

                      If you want to go down your rabbit hole though, who do you see as owning him?

                    • Roberts was carefully vetted by the conservative right before GWB was allowed to nominate him.

                      Sure was. But whatever deep dark goods they have on old Johnny were deep indeed.

                      As to who has the dirt. . .isn't King George S. the default?

                    • Roberts was carefully vetted by the conservative right before GWB was allowed to nominate him.

                      Sure was. But whatever deep dark goods they have on old Johnny were deep indeed.

                      Now you're not far from a QAnon level conspiracy, there. You seems to be implying that some shadowy powerbrokers were dictating for John Roberts, the rest of the conservatives on SCOTUS, dozens of conservative justices in district courts around the country, and who knows how many others, to conspire together for some shady end.

                      As to who has the dirt. . .isn't King George S. the default?

                      Oh come on, you should be able to dream up a better boogeyman than George Soros.

                    • To what end? His relationship with Xi is interesting, probably Vader to the Emperor. Can't fault their patient execution of the Long March, and the various tools they've picked up along the way.
                    • OK you've really lost me here. Who is it that you think has a relationship with Xi? I presume you mean Xi Jinping of China, but regardless I have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide some references here so I can see what you're referring to.
                    • Isn't the debt [investopedia.com]--the Thing Of Which We Cannot Speak--is the choke chain in use.
                      To what degree the oligarchs and state actors work together is entirely unknown.
                      And before you get all weird, this is a Both Sides Do It point.
                    • Can we please return to the question I raised in reply to your earlier comment?

                      Who is it that you think has a relationship with Xi?

                      I really think this is an important point to what you previously brought up. You alleged someone having some sort of Vader / Palpatine relationship with Xi, but I asked who it is specifically that you had in mind with that and why. Please, share with us unwashed masses who you are referring to and where this judgement comes from.

                    • Xi, Soros, and whoever holds the debt is calling the tune.
                      Executives and journalists have sold their souls for their sad little temporal positions.
                      What do you not understand? Debt is slavery. Our purported leaders in academia and office have sold the culture right out.
                      I guess it was just a higher form of capitalism for them, punting the founding ideals and the future.

                    • Xi, Soros, and whoever holds the debt is calling the tune.

                      Funny, I thought we were talking about politicians before. Now you've changed the subject to one of your favorite boogeymen instead. Can you humor me with some support for why we should think Soros is in cahoots with the Chinese government? This is honestly the first time I've ever heard that suggested, so I'm interested in knowing where you came up with it. Yes, I can google it myself but I'm interested in knowing what information sources convinced you of it to be a meritorious argument - or at least

                    • Can you humor me with some support for why we should think Soros is in cahoots with the Chinese government?

                      They share a common adversary?

                      I don't recall you ever showing concern for the national debt when Trump or anyone named Bush were living at 1600 Pennsylvania.

                      I've been Tea Party/fiscal conservative since I voted Perot in '92 What I said on the topic in the Trump context was that the Left had an excellent rhetorical kill shot in that if the Democrats offered a whiff of fiscal sanity, they could fractur

                    • Can you humor me with some support for why we should think Soros is in cahoots with the Chinese government?

                      They share a common adversary?

                      So you've got nothing, then. Thank you for the clarification. We'll just set that fun conspiracy aside as nothing more than a fun conspiracy.

                      I don't recall you ever showing concern for the national debt when Trump or anyone named Bush were living at 1600 Pennsylvania.

                      I've been Tea Party/fiscal conservative since I voted Perot in '92

                      And yet you voted Bush in at least three different presidential elections, Trump in at least two, McCain in one, and Romney in another. I'm sure I'm forgetting about at least one or two other elections where you voted for your team over your alleged principles.

                      What I said on the topic in the Trump context was that the Left had an excellent rhetorical kill shot in that if the Democrats offered a whiff of fiscal sanity, they could fracture Trump's base in jiffy.

                      You're funny on that one. There have been plenty of times in the past 40+ years where there was more fi

                    • And yet you voted Bush in at least three different presidential elections, Trump in at least two, McCain in one, and Romney in another. I'm sure I'm forgetting about at least one or two other elections where you voted for your team over your alleged principles.

                      See, there's this thing about ballots: they are populated with candidates, not principles.
                      But you know that, moving us to the question of why you peddle such piffle.
                      Ballots, like the legislation the officeholders vote upon, indeed, life in general,

                    • And yet you voted Bush in at least three different presidential elections, Trump in at least two, McCain in one, and Romney in another. I'm sure I'm forgetting about at least one or two other elections where you voted for your team over your alleged principles.

                      See, there's this thing about ballots: they are populated with candidates, not principles.

                      So which principle matters more to you then, the ones you are attempting to sell in these discussions this week, or which letter comes after the last name of the POTUS? You've sold out your principles, to what aim?

                    • So which principle matters more to you then, the ones you are attempting to sell in these discussions this week

                      Sorry boss, I haven't had any fresh (political) principles other than the founding ideals of this country in a very long time.

                      The GOP has seemed relatively less likely to prostitute those principles than the Democrats, but when you look at an abject tool like Romney, it's not hard to argue the Democrats are more honest about their Commie leanings.

                    • So which principle matters more to you then, the ones you are attempting to sell in these discussions this week

                      Sorry boss, I haven't had any fresh (political) principles

                      I certainly wouldn't accuse your endorsements of fascism this week of being in any way new.

                      other than the founding ideals of this country in a very long time.

                      Just because the GOP forcefully took ownership of what it means to be "American" after 9/11 doesn't mean that their evaluation of the constitution is the only valid one. If the founders wanted fascism, they could have established it explicitly and gone on with their business, the idea existed back then.

                    • Oh Lord, help me to love damn_registrars as You have loved your creation.
                      The example You set in the Gospel 2,000 years ago is the antithesis of fascism, that doctrine of the flesh endorsed by Satan.
                      Help me, Lord, as I seek to communicate the purity of Your Truth through the shabby medium of the internet, to curb my own tendency toward cheap riffs that distract from Your ultimate meaning.
                      In Jesus name I pray, Amen.

                    • The example You set in the Gospel 2,000 years ago is the antithesis of fascism, that doctrine of the flesh endorsed by Satan.

                      The bible is also the antithesis of conservatism. No surprise there as conservatism and fascism are fruits of the same tree.

                      Help me, Lord, as I seek to communicate the purity of Your Truth through the shabby medium of the internet

                      I'd be happy to see you communicate something truthful in this discussion. You've opted for a lot of the opposite of that so far.

  • Let's not sugarcoat it.

  • If it wasn't for the union, he would have been gone long ago.

    Because of him, I can see no, zero, reasons for anybody to be a police officer in a city with a population greater than 50,000 (the level which I've noticed woke politics and defunding the police, combined with a strong police union, radicalizes entire departments as good cops leave for places where they are appreciated).

  • Many complaints were logged against Chauvin before he killed George Floyd. We've now seen several senior members of MPD testify that what he did was well out of bounds compared to MPD policy and training. Honestly I'm surprised they could even find white officers to guard his jail cell while he was imprisoned awaiting his first hearing; I was expecting other cops to murder him by now as his actions have cost the jobs of both good and bad cops in Minneapolis and beyond.

    I'm not a lawyer but I really exp
    • Do you think that the details of the reporting and trial conduct have been fair, balanced, and support a just evaluation of Chauvin's culpability?
      • I'm not sure how we can really evaluate that when we so far have only seen the prosecution present in the courtroom. Let's wait for defense to start, present, and complete before we say how fair it might be. He has lawyers, they certainly could have brought more of their plans to the media before now if they wanted to; it is certainly reasonable at this point to assume that they have been largely quiet as part of their plan.

        Now if the question were do I believe he is getting the constitutionally manda

Slashdot Top Deals

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Close