ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- The Battle Of Lafayette Square

[ Posted Friday, June 5th, 2020 – 17:24 UTC ]

This week, an American president ordered the violent removal of peaceful protesters -- who were doing nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights to assemble, speak, and petition the government for redress -- from a public park so that he could then walk across the park and hold up a borrowed Bible for a photo opportunity with both the Secretary of Defense and (clad in battle fatigues) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Afterward, the Trump White House immediately issued a propaganda video of the event. Later that evening, a military helicopter clearly marked with a red cross took offensive action against the protesters (which is banned by the Geneva Conventions, and is now under investigation). Later still, the president and all his enablers in the White House lied through their teeth about the entire incident, repeatedly. At week's end, we learned of another affront to the Constitution by the Trump administration, when it was revealed that federal law enforcement had unconstitutionally seized a shipment of cloth face masks created by a Black Lives Matter affiliate, and the only possible reason they did so was that the Department of Justice apparently didn't like the messages displayed on the masks (which read: "Stop killing black people," and: "Defund police").

We can't help but think of an old bumpersticker, which used to be popular a few decades ago: "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention."

Many have speculated that Trump's new campaign focus on being "the law-and-order president" harkens back to Richard Nixon's successful bid in 1968. But this week reminded me of another president, from further back. Here are excerpts from the Wikipedia article on the "Bonus Army," by way of explanation:

The Bonus Army was a group of 43,000 demonstrators -- made up of 17,000 U.S. World War I veterans, together with their families and affiliated groups -- who gathered in Washington, D.C. in mid-1932 to demand early cash redemption of their service certificates. Organizers called the demonstrators the "Bonus Expeditionary Force", to echo the name of World War I's American Expeditionary Forces, while the media referred to them as the "Bonus Army" or "Bonus Marchers". The demonstrators were led by Walter W. Waters, a former sergeant.

Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1948. Each certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier's promised payment with compound interest. The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors, and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

. . .

On July 28, 1932, President Hoover ordered the Secretary of War to disperse the protesters. Towards the late afternoon, cavalry, infantry, tanks and machine guns pushed the "Bonusers" out of Washington. When the veterans moved back into the camp, police drew their revolvers and shot at the veterans, two of whom, William Hushka and Eric Carlson, died later.

. . .

At 1:40 pm MacArthur ordered General Perry Miles to assemble troops on the Ellipse immediately south of the White House. Within the hour the 3rd Cavalry led by [George S.] Patton, then a Major, crossed the Memorial Bridge, with the 12th Infantry arriving by steamer about an hour later. At 4 pm Miles told MacArthur that the troops were ready, and MacArthur (like Eisenhower, by now in service uniform), said that Hoover wanted him "on hand" to "take the rap if..."

Although the troops were ready, Hoover twice sent instructions to MacArthur not to cross the Anacostia bridge that night, both of which were ignored. Shortly after 9 p.m., MacArthur ordered Miles to cross the bridge and evict the Bonus Army from its encampment.

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by General Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six M1917 light tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them, which prompted the spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"

After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and tear gas (adamsite, an arsenical vomiting agent) entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp, and Hoover ordered the assault stopped. MacArthur chose to ignore the president and ordered a new attack, claiming that the Bonus March was an attempt to overthrow the US government. 55 veterans were injured and 135 arrested. A veteran's wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, and a hospital spokesman said the tear gas "didn't do it any good."

During the military operation, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, later the 34th president of the United States, served as one of MacArthur's junior aides. Believing it wrong for the Army's highest-ranking officer to lead an action against fellow American war veterans, he strongly advised MacArthur against taking any public role: "I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there," he said later. "I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff." Despite his misgivings, Eisenhower later wrote the Army's official incident report that endorsed MacArthur's conduct.

Please note that 1932 was a presidential election year. Hoover lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Will this history repeat itself? It's just as valid to speculate about 1932 as 1968, after the events of this week.

Because so much happened so fast, we're going to have to speed through the timeline, and provide links for further reading (such as this one, with a full timeline of the Battle of Lafayette Square).

Last weekend, Trump attempted to call the family of George Floyd, probably after hearing that Joe Biden had already called them. It did not go well. Floyd's brother:

The call with Trump was "so fast," [Philonise] Floyd told the Rev. Al Sharpton on "Politics Nation."

"He didn't give me the opportunity to even speak," Floyd said, as his son Brandon sat beside him. "It was hard. I was trying to talk to him, but he just kept, like, pushing me off, like: 'I don't want to hear what you're talking about.'"

Floyd said: "I just told him I want justice. I said that I couldn't believe that they committed a modern-day lynching in broad daylight. I can't stand for that. I can't. And it hurt me."

Also during the weekend, both Trump and Attorney General William Barr issue threats to protesters. Both seem fixated on "antifa" (with Trump even attempting a legal impossibility by threatening to label antifa a "domestic terrorist organization"), even though neither has shown the slightest shred of evidence to back up such claims. Meanwhile, right-wing agitators have indeed been arrested trying to use the cover of the protests to launch their own war against the police. These groups are never mentioned by Trump or Barr.

Last Friday, Trump was hustled to a White House bunker after protesters breached the White House security perimeter. This is a normal occurrence when such breaches happen (remember all the previous "fence-jumpers"?), but Trump got plenty of ridicule for "hiding in a bunker," most of which was well-deserved, since he's spent the past few weeks taunting Joe Biden for "hiding in his basement." Because Trump knew he looked so weak, he decided to stage a strongman display on Monday.

First, he called up the nation's governors to insult them directly, calling them "weak" and "fools." He also told them: "If you don't dominate, you're wasting your time. They're going to run over you -- you're going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate." Trump offhandedly said he wanted to make flag-burning illegal, even though the Supreme Court has ruled twice that this is constitutionally-protected First Amendment free speech.

Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker pushed back during the phone call with Trump:

I wanted to take this moment -- and I can't let it pass -- to speak up and say that I've been extraordinarily concerned about the rhetoric that's been used by you. It's been inflammatory. We have to call for calm. We have to have police reform called for. We've called out our national guard and our state police, but the rhetoric that's coming out of the White House is making it worse. And I need to say that people are feeling real pain out there and we've got to have national leadership in calling for calm and making sure that we're addressing the concerns of the legitimate peaceful protesters. That will help us to bring order.

Trump responded with the classic "I know you are but what am I?" defense: "I don't like your rhetoric much either. I think you could've done a much better job, frankly."

Some of Trump's own White House staff seemed to agree that some sort of unity message would be helpful: "The White House's top domestic policy adviser on Monday said President Donald Trump is exploring a range of bipartisan initiatives intended to unify the country amid a nationwide eruption of racial unrest and protests that have ravaged major American cities." Of course, no such proposals will ever see the light of day. Because Trump had a different idea about what would be helpful.

A half an hour before the announced 7:00 P.M. curfew in D.C., Barr ordered federal troops to clear Lafayette Square, even though neither the mayor nor the D.C. police had requested such a move. They used chemical weapons (gas) and non-lethal projectiles (rubber bullets) on the protesters, which was filmed live by the media who were in attendance. On the steps of the church in question -- on their own property, in other words -- ministers were peacefully handing out drinks and energy bars to the protesters. All were swept aside by the advancing federal troops.

Seminarian Julia Joyce Domenick told HuffPost what happened to her:

"The irony, the sickening, sacrilegious irony is that we were being driven off in order for a photo opportunity to show the president and his commitment to religion ideas," Gerbasi said. "It's grotesque and offensive and sacrilegious."

She said she was acting out her religious beliefs by serving protesters at the church and that her religious freedom was violated when she was forced off church property by tear gas.

. . .

"No warning... Screaming, flash grenades, and tear gas came at us. People ran as fast as they could around the corner of the church. Within minutes all of the church volunteers were met with a crowd running from the police and the police swarming the church property," she wrote on Facebook.

"We were gassed for a photo op," Domenick added. "Is ANY life valuable to him? Is it all about ratings?"

Other faith leaders were just as harsh:

The president hoisted the holy book "as if it were spiritual validation and justification for a message that is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus and to the God of justice," the Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, told ABC News.

Jesuit priest James Martin argued on CNN that the use of violence "to remove peacemakers from in front of the church -- so you can hold up a Bible and say how great America is while you're promising military action against peaceful protesters -- seems to me to be the complete opposite of what Jesus taught."

Ahead of Trump's scheduled visit Tuesday to the Saint John Paul II National Shrine, Washington Archbishop Wilton Gregory called it "baffling and reprehensible that any Catholic facility would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated in a fashion that violates our religious principles."

The late pope, Gregory said in his statement, "was an ardent defender of the rights and dignity of human beings," and "certainly would not condone the use of tear gas and other deterrents to silence, scatter or intimidate them for a photo opportunity in front of a place of worship and peace."

As flash-bang grenades could be heard by the media in attendance, Trump delivered a bellicose speech in the Rose Garden:

Trump, speaking at the White House, said he "strongly recommended" every governor fully deploy the National Guard in response to the riots. If a city or state refuses, "I will deploy the U.S. military and quickly solve the problem for them," he said, citing his authority under the Insurrection Act of 1807.

"I am your president of law and order," Trump said.

. . .

"As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults and the wanton destruction of property," Trump said.

He ended his speech by mysteriously promising: "And now I'm going to pay my respects to a very, very special place."

Trump then went on his walk to the church, awkwardly held up a borrowed Bible, turned around and walked back to the White House.

Despite all of this being caught on multiple cameras, Trump and everyone around him has repeatedly lied about what happened ever since. Barr claims his order to clear the park had nothing to do with Trump's staged photo op. He also claimed (just as laughably) that he didn't "necessarily view" the photo op "as a political act." Mark Esper later said he "had no idea" where they were going, and just followed along with the president. Trump has even now claimed that he was never hustled to the bunker in the first place (what set all of this off), and instead made a "tiny little short" visit that was "much more for an inspection." The White House has also tried to bait the press with some truly moronic hair-splitting over what constitutes "tear gas."

The reactions have been harsh, all across the political spectrum. So many people are now turning on Trump, in fact, it is hard to keep track of all of them. Trump's polling is sinking like a stone, pretty much across the board.

This even includes a few Republican senators -- the ones who haven't been hiding from the media ever since Trump's disastrous photo op:

"It was painful to watch peaceful protesters be subjected to tear gas in order for the president to go across the street to a church that I believe he's attended only once," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "I thought that the president came across as unsympathetic and as insensitive to the rights of people to peaceful protest."

"There is a fundamental -- a constitutional -- right to protest, and I'm against clearing out a peaceful protest for a photo op that treats the Word of God as a political prop," added Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who also decried rioting and looting. "Every public servant in America should be lowering the temperature."

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski even told a reporter that she wasn't even sure if she could support Trump in November, which earned her a petulant and nasty tweet from Trump.

Trump is pretty peeved by all of this, and when today's unemployment numbers turned out to be much better than expected, he gave a press statement that was even more disjointed than usual, where he astonishingly claimed that George Floyd was happily up in heaven beaming down on Trump and the unemployment figures. Earlier in the week, Trump claimed (once again) that he had done more for black people than any president since Abraham Lincoln -- a claim which is downright ludicrous (most historians would put L.B.J. in second place on such a list, and put Trump way down towards the bottom).

In other downright laughable lies from the Trump White House this week came Kellyanne Conway trying to denigrate all those who had questioned Trump's religious sincerity during the photo op:

"It's very unfortunate that people of faith would call into question what is in anyone's heart, including the president's, [and] what compelled him to go over to St. John's and hold up his Bible," she said. "The politicization of that by people of faith is very unfortunate."

Here's a flashback to explain why this is nothing short of hypocritical horse manure, from a prayer breakfast Trump attended with many faith leaders. Trump slammed Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi during his remarks (after Romney voted to convict Trump after giving a speech about how his faith mandated such a vote, and after Pelosi said she regularly prayed for Trump):

"I don't like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong," President Donald Trump said during his speech at the breakfast.

"Nor do I like people who say, 'I pray for you,' when they know that that's not so," he added, taking an obvious shot at Pelosi, who often says she prays for the president.

So much for "calling into question what is in anyone's heart" when it comes to religion, eh, Kellyanne?

Also vying for most-hilarious-lie was Mike Pence, who sanctimoniously tweeted:

We believe in law and order in this Country. We condemn violence against property or persons. We will always stand for the right of Americans to peacefully protest and let their voices be heard.

Many on Twitter reminded the world of the facts -- that Mike Pence had spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on security for an Indianapolis Colts football game, only to immediately stand up and leave when some of the players took a knee during the National Anthem -- to protest exactly what all those protesters are now in the streets protesting. Hypocrisy, thy name is Pence.

On the heels of Trump's Bible video (filmed in the classic Leni Riefenstahl style), Team Trump hasn't been having a great week with their propaganda efforts. They released a video purporting to show that protesters were "pre-staging" piles of bricks to throw at cops, but it was quickly debunked (the videos showed random construction sites, some of them miles from the actual protests). Then they tried to use the SpaceX launch in a campaign ad, but the wife of one of the astronauts loudly complained that she hadn't given permission for images of her and her son to be "used in political propaganda without my knowledge or consent." The ad has now been taken down. Another Trump ad was also pulled by Twitter for unspecified "copyright issues."

It's easy to make fun of Trump's idiocy, but please don't lose the larger picture when doing so. The president of the United States repeatedly violated the Constitution this week for purely political and self-serving purposes. He also, according to his critics, defiled both the Bible and the church he used as a backdrop. He has ordered medical helicopters to use offensive tactics against protesters, in violation of the international rules of warfare. His Justice Department -- who halted all Department of Justice civil rights oversight of police departments very early on in his term -- has now seized harmless cloth masks because of the messages printed on them. All of these things violate the Constitution or international law. And they all took place within the span of a single week. While it is easy to get exhausted by Donald Trump, at times we all need to pay close attention -- even if it leads to outrage. Because when the president is being outrageous (in the absolute worst sense of the word), then outrage is the only possible response.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have to give Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week, although Joe Biden was certainly a runner-up for giving a wonderful and downright presidential speech in Philadelphia in response to the protests. But Schumer's rhetoric was more memorable, at least to us (it's where we got this column's subtitle):

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer painted an ugly image of President Donald Trump "descending the dictatorial ladder" as he lay in bed at the White House Monday night with military helicopters flying above after having his photo taken at St. John's Episcopal Church.

"He probably wore out his remote control watching the clips of General Barr's victory over the unarmed in the battle of Lafayette Square," Schumer, D-N.Y., scoffed. "Then he reveled in the sounds of Black Hawks flying overhead joyously retweeting scores of preening sycophants."

. . .

With reports that law enforcement used tear gas to disperse peaceful protestors in advance of Trump’s visit to the church, Schumer also called on the Pentagon’s inspector general to lead an investigation into how the military was used at Lafayette Park in tandem with the president’s photo opportunity.

"After the gas, came the horses -- a modern-day cavalry was clearing the battlefield. The purpose, so that President Trump could wave a Bible, not read a Bible, not even his Bible, as a prop," Schumer said. "It was appalling. It was an abuse of presidential power. It may well have been illegal and it was blatantly unconstitutional."

We don't know if anyone else will begin using the term, but "The Battle of Lafayette Square" seems entirely appropriate to us. That bit at the end was pretty classic, too -- "wave a Bible, not read a Bible, not even his Bible, as a prop."

Schumer's right -- this is blatantly unconstitutional. It is indeed an abuse of presidential power. We've all gotten so used to Trump's regular antics that it's hard at times to differentiate when he does something not just truly awful but constitutionally awful. Schumer made that distinction better than anyone this week, which is why we're giving him the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This is mostly unrelated to the other events of the week, but we felt it was more than worthy of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. See if you agree:

Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) drew criticism Tuesday after he repeatedly asked to speak at a Bronx news conference on protests over the killing of George Floyd, then said near a live microphone, "If I didn't have a primary, I wouldn't care."

Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is serving his 16th term in the House. He is facing a competitive June 23 primary, and his leading challenger, middle-school principal Jamaal Bowman, cited the statement as a sign that it's time for Engel to leave Congress.

Bowman has been endorsed by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who rose to fame by primarying another Democratic House member who out outstayed his New York welcome.

Engel tried to walk his "hot mic moment" back, without much success:

Engel clarified his remarks Tuesday afternoon, saying in a statement that he had wanted to convey that he cares "deeply about what's happening in this country."

"In the context of running for reelection, I thought it was important for people to know where I stand, that's why I asked to speak," Engel said. He added: "I love the Bronx, grew up in the Bronx and lived here all my life. I would not have tried to impose on the borough president if I didn't think it was important."

None of which really addressed the whole callous "If I didn't have a primary, I wouldn't care" remark, you'll notice.

For admitting to his own constituents the level of his own hypocrisy, and for quite obviously only caring about his own political future in the midst of a crisis, Eliot Engel is this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, by far.

[Contact Representative Eliot Engel on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 577 (6/5/20)

We are pre-empting our usual talking points section this week, because the constitutional threats are so great that the moment requires more than partisan sniping. We did consider just reprinting Barack Obama's essay on the situation, which was (in a word) presidential in nature.

Instead, though, we've selected two of the growing number of high-ranking military leaders who are forcefully speaking out about how wrong Trump's photo op truly was. The first was little noticed when it appeared, but it may actually have been instrumental in convincing Mark Esper to drastically change course midweek. It is a letter of resignation from James N. Miller, who served as undersecretary of Defense for policy from 2012 to 2014, and was (up until this week) a member of the Defense Science Board. It pointedly takes Esper to task for his role in the fiasco. He handed in this letter on Tuesday evening, and the next morning Esper changed his tune and openly disagreed with Trump about using the Insurrection Act. Reportedly, Esper's own job is now on the line for showing such independence. But this letter may have been instrumental in getting Esper to realize how wrong he had been to participate.

Hon. Mark T. Esper
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C., 20301

 

Dear Secretary Esper,

I resign from the Defense Science Board, effective immediately.

When I joined the Board in early 2014, after leaving government service as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I again swore an oath of office, one familiar to you, that includes the commitment to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

You recited that same oath on July 23, 2019, when you were sworn in as Secretary of Defense. On Monday, June 1, 2020, I believe that you violated that oath. Law-abiding protesters just outside the White House were dispersed using tear gas and rubber bullets -- not for the sake of safety, but to clear a path for a presidential photo op. You then accompanied President Trump in walking from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church for that photo.

President Trump's actions Monday night violated his oath to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," as well as the First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble." You may not have been able to stop President Trump from directing this appalling use of force, but you could have chosen to oppose it. Instead, you visibly supported it.

Anyone who takes the oath of office must decide where he or she will draw the line: What are the things that they will refuse to do? Secretary Esper, you have served honorably for many years, in active and reserve military duty, as Secretary of the Army, and now as Secretary of Defense. You must have thought long and hard about where that line should be drawn. I must now ask: If last night's blatant violations do not cross the line for you, what will?

Unfortunately, it appears there may be few if any lines that President Trump is not willing to cross, so you will probably be faced with this terrible question again in the coming days. You may be asked to take, or to direct the men and women serving in the U.S. military to take, actions that further undermine the Constitution and harm Americans.

As a concerned citizen, and as a former senior defense official who cares deeply about the military, I urge you to consider closely both your future actions and your future words. For example, some could interpret literally your suggestion to the nation's governors Monday that they need to "dominate the battlespace." I cannot believe that you see the United States as a "battlespace," or that you believe our citizens must be "dominated." Such language sends an extremely dangerous signal.

You have made life-and-death decisions in combat overseas; soon you may be asked to make life-and-death decisions about using the military on American streets and against Americans. Where will you draw the line, and when will you draw it?

I hope this letter of resignation will encourage you to again contemplate the obligations you undertook in your oath of office, as well as your obligations to the men and women in our military and other Americans whose lives may be at stake. In the event that at least some other senior officials may be inclined to ask these questions after reading this letter, I am making it public.

I wish you the best, in very difficult times. The sanctity of the U.S. Constitution, and the lives of Americans, may depend on your choices.

Sincerely,

James N. Miller

The second letter we thought demanded as wide an audience as possible is the full text of what James Mattis wrote in The Atlantic this week, under the title "In Union There Is Strength." Mattis is just as upset as Miller, and again takes Esper to task. This letter appeared after Esper's change of heart, however. Mattis saves most of his condemnation for Donald Trump, however, who is much more at blame in a larger sense. Mattis ends with a plea for the country to "unite without" Trump, since Trump is obviously never going to unite anything. Both this statement and Miller's letter are extraordinary and historic rebukes to President Trump, which is why we chose to run them this week rather than our talking points.

I have watched this week's unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand -- one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values -- our values as people and our values as a nation.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens -- much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a "battlespace" that our uniformed military is called upon to "dominate." At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict -- a false conflict -- between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

James Madison wrote in "Federalist 14" that "America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat." We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that "The Nazi slogan for destroying us... was 'Divide and Conquer.' Our American answer is 'In Union there is Strength.'" We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis -- confident that we are better than our politics.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people -- does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln's "better angels," and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path -- which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals -- will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

165 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- The Battle Of Lafayette Square”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The most offensive psychopath bath babble I have ever heard from Trump:

    "Hopefully George is looking down and saying this is a great thing that's happening for our country. (It's) a great day for him."

    If it's so great ASSHOLE, why not take one of your COVID cocktails and join him for a game of Heavenly Golf? BEST 18 Holes Ever!

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Clinching the Democratic nomination for president is pretty impressive, well, for a Biden fan.

    Let the people of Iowa put THAT in their collective pipe and smoke it. There now, I think I've finally got all of that out of my system - you can bet the farm on it, even if it's in Iowa! Heh.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    Nice. :)

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's the matter with the Buffalo Police Department, or a big chunk of it, at least?

    Pushing down an elderly man who has probably seen steadier days on his feet, watching him tumble and crack his scull on the pavement and then just walk past him as if nothing had happened?

    I can't watch the video without tearing up.

    What kind of human beings are they?

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Wow, Mr. Weigant, todays FTP is powerful writing. I had no doubt that you would promptly address this Constitutional crisis that I was so freaked out about in my comments re your last column.
    It's heartening that various American Warriors are sounding the same alarm.

    I just can't see how Trump and Putin's GOP aren't gonna get stomped in November.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yep, niiice, Mister or Ms. TheStig

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [2]

    Please clarify for me, if'n ya would Ms. Miller: you alluded to the People of Iowa and sticking something in their pipes. Heh. Please throw me a little background.

    Signed--

    Curious In Green Valley Lake

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Last (Fort) column Don Harris wrote:

    So let's not keep fooling ourselves that we can solve the problem by solving racism because you don't solve the problem by addressing a symptom of how the problem manifests itself- you have to treat the cause.

    Just like voting out big money Republicans/Trump is addressing the symptom of what is killing democracy but replacing them with big money Dems does nothing to solve the underlying cause of the problem.

    Wake up...etcetera etcetera.

    Granted, BigMoney in America is the enemy, Brother Don. I will always be 100% on board with you on that.

    But today's Democratic Party is light years away from Corporate Hillary's Democratic Party in 2016.

    If Bernie went negative against Joe (in other words honestly point out why Corporate Joe ain't the answer) and...

    If BigMoney Democrats didn't get all the moderates to drop out and instantly coalesce behind Biden...

    Bernie Sanders would be our presumptive Nominee. Would you be hating on the Democrats as much is it was Bernie? Please respond in detail -- I'm really curious.

    Racism is America's dark stain. And BigMoney is the force behind it. America was built on the backs of black slaves, working amidst the graves of the Native Americans whose continent we took.

    But it DOES make a difference which evil BigMoney candidate wins, and we Progressives are way too strong to permit some "Third Way" bullsh*t this time around. Wouldn't you agree that we have to get Trump out?

    No way OneDemand happens without at least Democrats making it happen. Until a combination of:

    (1) eliminating Citizens United
    (2) limiting PACs
    (3) some version of OneDemand that results in it being the majority of the monies these three elements allow. To summarize, the conditions necessary to allow OneDemand to work are simply not here, not now.

  9. [9] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Orange Queen: Obama hid like a CHICKEN in the bunker too!

    I can hardly wait for the imbecile to tweet that he's not a bigger coward than the black guy. How has he resisted?

  10. [10] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    MtnCaddy Your [5]

    You and I and a great many others "couldn't see how . . ." in 2016, right?

    So can we see now???

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    Today's Dem party is light years away from 2016 Dems?

    If big money Dems didn't get all moderates to drop out and coalesce behind Biden doesn't seem all that different to me.

    It DOES make a difference which evil big money candidate wins also sounds very familiar.

    If Bernie was the nominee I would still be demanding that he run a small donor only campaign to earn my vote.

    If progressives are way to strong to permit some "third way bullshit" then prove it by demanding that Biden run a small donor only campaign. Otherwise you ARE permitting some third way bullshit.

    If people are not pissed off enough now for One Demand they never will be.

    The conditions exist and have existed in every election for One Demand to work. It might not, in fact it is likely to not be 100% effective in it's first election cycle, but that is more of a reason to start it now then to wait for the conditions to become perfect for 100% effectiveness before starting it.

    The Dems taking back the house in 2018 was not 100% effective, but it was part of an overall multi election cycle plan. Should everyone have skipped the 2018 election to wait for conditions to be perfect for the Dems to take all three branches of government?

    How is eliminating Citizens United and limiting PACs a requirement for One Demand to be successful?

    The version of One Demand right now limits the amount of monies allowed by requiring the candidates to adhere to the limit to earn our votes.

    How is giving the big money candidates our votes for nothing AGAIN going to achieve the goal?

    That hasn't worked for decades and it's time to move in another direction. It's why Trump is in office now.

    Yes, Trump has got to go. And Trump will not be gone unless Biden can get enough citizens to vote for him to beat Trump.

    So this is the best time to pressure Biden to step up and prove that beating Trump is more important than protecting the big money interests by demanding he run a small donor only campaign in the general election to earn our votes.

    All Biden has to do is do the right thing.

    Why should anyone vote for him if he will not do the right thing?

    Just one in ten registered Dems contributing 200 dollars would be around 600 million dollars. Another one in ten contributing 100 dollars is another 300 million and another one in ten contributing 50 dollars puts the total over 1 billion.

    Are you saying three in ten Dems would not make these contributions if Biden made this commitment?

    Are you saying it would not get Biden more votes?

    Why does no one here answer these questions?

  12. [12] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    As one of the people that did see Trump beating Hillary I can also see that he could do it again as Biden currently is offering the same false choice that was offered by Hillary.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself- and that is what will allow the big money interests to blackmail one of their lackeys into office.

    The big money interests have had their knee on our necks for decades.

    Where are the protest in the place that counts most- the voting booth?

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    For the last 12 years, I have referred to it as the Fiasco in Iowa, 2008 Ed.

    That was most decidedly NOT because Obama won the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses but most definitely because Biden received less than one percent of that vote. I've held that result against the people of Iowa for a long time and finally, last night, I let it go.

    Biden promptly withdrew from the 2008 race that night of the Iowa caucuses, on a point of personal privilege, as he told his disappointed supporters.

    By 2008, Iraq continued to circle the drain, its leaders unable to find a way for Sunnis, Shi'a and Kurds to live together, peacefully, in a united Iraq.

    Since soon after the war in Iraq began, Biden worked hard to find a solution to the mess that the US caused there.

    Among the Democratic candidates in 2008, Biden was the only one who had come up with a solid plan for how the US could craft a policy toward Iraq that would go a long way toward ending the misery. He was one of the very few on the planet working to that end. Certainly no one in the Bush administration cared.

    Biden's plan for US policy to advocate for a peaceful and united Iraq was put to the test in the US Senate in a sense of the Senate Resolution in September of 2007. Biden's plan got the support of 75 US senators in what might have been one of the last bipartisan votes in the senate for doing the right thing.

    In any event, Biden handed this plan to save Iraq and US policy there to the Bush administration on a silver platter. Sadly, they looked the gift horse in the mouth and, worse still, proceeded to sabotage the plan as a sure fire way to partition Iraq. Which couldn't have been further from the truth.

    But, the partition label stuck and, since 2008, the people of Iraq have suffered immeasurably.

    Biden didn't run for president in 2004 because he was too invested in finding a solution for US policy in Iraq. The Democratic nominee that year, Senator Kerry, had asked Biden to be Secretary of State. Biden's answer - he'd rather be Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, assuming the senate would be in Democratic hands.

    People always talk about the ego and the ambition required to run for president or any public office. Biden has always demonstrated a higher political calling.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, "Ms. Miller" is better than ma'am but, not much.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is a message, for those interested, from Bill Burns, the president of the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace and very possible candidate for Secretary of State in a Biden administration, about how to move forward in the wake of George Floyd's death and protests for justice and racial equality in America and around the world, without which, peace will remain elusive.

    https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/06/04/message-to-carnegie-endowment-community-pub-81981

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    eliot engel, huh? well damn, that's MY district.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's too bad.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, there are some good things happening in the city today, no?

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    i mean, having Engel in your district IS really too bad and I feel for you, Joshua …

    "That's too bad" just didn't sound right. :)

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    donald should found a new group and call it nobody's life matters, except maybe mine.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    indeed

  22. [22] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [10]

    C.R. Stucki wrote:

    You and I and a great many others "couldn't see how . . ." in 2016, right?

    So can we see now???

    Yes, I certainly can see Trump winning - who could seriously argue otherwise after 2016?

    But if you believe that
    "Well, the pollsters were wrong in 2016
    so that means polling is bogus & useless and should be ignored"
    does that mean you believe that Trump's billion dollar team isn't parsing just about every last poll out there and campaigning accordingly?

    The Michale version of this is "Because I picked Trump and [most] of the rest of you Libs didn't, I own you Libs and I'll certainly be right this time, as well." Good luck with that.

    But don't forget that
    it took a perfect storm for Trump to win:

    1) establishment Dems (aka BigMoney Dems, Brother Don Harris) shoved megaqualified but unpopular Hillary down our throats.[BTW I'm afraid that this will likewise hurt Joe in the General election - that's why Joe was so low on my list of Dems.]

    2) James Comey's astonishing dual October surprises couldn't have been timed worse for Hillary.

    3) The Rooskies clearly contributed to Trump's success. We'll never know how much because Trump has stymied further inquiries.

    So Trump "The Outsider" squeeks in.

    Now Trump's the incumbent. Let's see why 2020 isn't like 2016...

    Trump has had underwater approval ratings since day 1; he turned the longest peacetime economic recovery into The 2nd Great Depression; he's the first President in a century to undeniably try to devide rather than unite America; at least 50,000 of us died needlessly because Trump completely botched America's (we used to be #1) response to coronavirus; now he wants the Army to crush dissent, say, like a Putin would! Need I continue?

    So yeah, Trump could win but my money's on Joe Biden not blowing this 2 foot putt.

    Show me what's wrong with my reasoning CRS/Michale - please enlighten this Libtard!

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now Trump's the incumbent. Let's see why 2020 isn't like 2016...

    (1) Hillary Clinton is no Joe Biden

    And, with respect to the perfect storm you outlined above, Hillary has no one but her husband to blame for James Comey having anything to do with the outcome of the 2016 election, a fact that rarely gets mentioned.

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    But in many ways Joe Biden is Hillary Clinton.

    And those are the most important ways.

    Biden is a big money Dem and has clearly shown that protecting the big money interests is more important than beating Trump.

    What a worthless scumbag (Biden, not just Trump).

    One thing different about 2020 is that Bernie was screwed again in the primaries and many of his supporters may not be so willing to vote for Biden this time (if they are not stupid enough to keep being deceived).

    How can anyone at this point still not see through Biden's deception? Biden supporters are as pitiful as Trump supporters.

    And all Biden and the Dems have to do is purge the party of big money to win the election in a landslide.

    Yet all Biden is offering is more of the same that got us where we are today.

    What a worthless scumbag.

    That should be his slogan- Vote for the worthless scumbag Biden instead of the worthless scumbag that is worth even less.

    At least it would be honest.

  25. [25] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [23]

    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ...And, with respect to the perfect storm you outlined above, Hillary has no one but her husband to blame for James Comey having anything to do with the outcome of the 2016 election, a fact that rarely gets mentioned.

    Elizabeth, Slick Willy has been steadily losing my respect with each passing year of "upon further review" [Gawd, ihopeihopeihope we get fuh-fuh-fuh-foobahl, sighed the 'Murican male. " Men! I swear!" eh, Liz?]

    I guess I'm asking you to give me the details so I can tie them around Bill's ankle and pitch him off my emotional cliff, K?

    (musing) Maybe I'm a little on the needy side here, but I live and breathe this sh*t.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you live and breathe it, you should know it.

  27. [27] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [13]

    Whoa...Nellie -- er -- Whoooa...Lizzie!

    Wahl May'Yam..

    I shore aim glad that yuh shared thuh record on Joe and that they-yahr Mideast Mess, May'Yam! Makes it easier fer a feller tuh git behind this here Biden Hombre.

  28. [28] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [26]

    Ouch! Thank you, Mistress, may I have another?

    Hey allow for the fact that no one knows everything. There's too much to know, ya dig?

    Best to at least allow for the possibility that there could well be a number of subjects I know that you've yet to encounter.

    (thinking) ... sheesh!, and to think I marched for the Equal Rights Amendment back in'79. Sigh.

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You make me laugh … and, that is a very good thing.

    It's so hard to believe that you don't know why Comey was forced to do what he did. But, because you make me laugh so, I will tell the sad story …

    Tomorrow.

  30. [30] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    For example, I've played bass guitar in many a Big Bear drinking and fundraising environment. I've defended Democracy in 127° temps, digged ditches, orifice managed a small business or two, appraised and then sold real estate, blah blah blah. (I know, I know how-I-say just how I still on the market? haha. Full disclosure - we're still looking for the right combination of meds and therapy.

    I'm into fine art 2-D, world history all eras (my favorites being USA and WW2 Eastern Front,) anthropology, religions past and present, mathematics, biology, accounting, regulatory realities... aaand many more!

    Mind you, I'm not deep in most of these subjects. Hell, I just like to read and learn stuff, politics being #1. Oh yeah, and to pay attention as I journey through this mortal coil.

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, in that case, I won't make you wait until tomorrow. But, I watching Lawrence of Arabia right now, again.

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,

    "orifice managed" a small business or two? how does THAT work? presuming it was a type-o, but images come to mind... heh.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I thought Comey's Folly was caused by some mix of:

    FBI institutional and/or [cue John Hurt's voice in The Big Chill] "a small, deeply disturbed following" of FBI agent's dislike of Hillary,

    Political pressure on Comey to avoid at (what arguably proved too high a) cost even the microscopic appearance of FBI going easy on Hill [cue "But emails! And Benghazi!",

    And systemic misogyny.

    My bad.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Can't say anything about Mtn Caddy, but I know which orifice many managers in places I worked at used to make decisions. :D

    The same one people use when they decide to support Biden.

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Hillary didn't lose because of anyone but Hillary.

    She was not as good as Biden is at deception. It was obvious she was a worthless scumbag.

    Biden smiles while he screws you.

  37. [37] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [32] nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,


    "orifice managed" a small business or two? how does THAT work? presuming it was a type-o, but images come to mind... heh.

    JL

    No, not a typo. Congratulations, and don't worry about those, er, images "coming" alive [insert gratuitous "Heh" here] in your " head" [ditto] okay? This was my fiendish intent. FYI it's street (or office) slang for office manager.

  38. [38] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    "Sooometimes I just crack myself up."

    -Maverick
    Top Gun

  39. [39] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [35] Don Harris wrote:

    "Can't say anything about Mtn Caddy, but I know which orifice many managers in places I worked at used to make decisions. :D

    K, funny intro but the punchline left me wanting, oh zealous Brother Don

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    In 2016, James Comey was merely the director of the FBI. How on earth was he put in charge of announcing the conclusions and ramifications of an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails and server? Who was his boss?

    The Attorney General at the time was none other than Loretta Lynch, a long-time associate of the Clintons. President Clinton nominated her for the position of US Attorney in New York. On this basis alone, there was criticism that she, as Attorney General in the Obama administration, could not be impartial in the Hillary Clinton email investigation and should, therefore, recuse herself.

    So, it is in that context, that Bill Clinton did something that may very likely have, for all intents and purposes, sabotaged his wife's presidential campaign. Not that I don't believe she was already in the process of doing that all by herself, you understand where I'm coming from.

    Just days before his wife was to be interviewed by the FBI, former president Bill Clinton happened to be at the Phoenix airport at the same time as AG Loretta Lynch. He proceeded to board her plane which had just arrived. They met for 30 minutes.

    Now, they both say that nothing was discussed about Hillary's upcoming interview with the FBI. They talked about the weather and their grandchildren. Well, they could have talked about the JFK and RFK assassinations for all it mattered. The fact that Bill boarded that plane and the fact that the AG didn't order him off of it immediately was enough to fuel the outcry - and not just from Republicans.

    So, slightly bowing to political pressure, Lynch didn't recuse herself, per se, from having any involvement in the FBI investigation into Hillary's emails but she was forced to say, in public, that she would defer to whatever decision the FBI recommended in the case.

    Add to this the fact that AG Lynch suggested to the FBI director that the Hillary email situation be referred to as a "matter" and not an investigation.

    Comey decided that he and he alone would announce what the FBI decided. He did not even tell the AG what he was going to say. Which was that there would be no charges recommended in the Hillary emails case. This was, arguably - very cogently arguably - the least worst decision that could be made to protect the integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department.

    I, wholeheartedly, agree with Comey's decision and rationale for it.

    Now, can you imagine what would have happened if Comey just left it at that - that the investigation was complete and that there were no charges against the Democratic nominee for president, without any explanation, whatsoever?!

    I think you and I both can imagine just such a scenario and it ain't pretty. It was bad enough when he did give an explanation.

    So, absent the visit between Bill and Lynch on that tarmac in Phoenix, it would have been AG Lynch who gave the announcement of no charges against Hillary. And, Comey would have had no public role to play in the whole sordid affair.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Should we be so fortunate to see Biden elected the next president, he couldn't do better than to select former FBI director James Comey for Attorney General.

    Yeah, I know, right after he picks Timothy F. Geithner for a second tour of duty as Secretary of the Treasury.

    A girl can dream ...

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    even with all that, hillary could have prevailed had she and her campaign not taken pennsylvania, wisconsin and michigan for granted.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!

  44. [44] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [40]

    Duh-Oh! The idiot tarmack thing. Makes me wonder if Bill sabotaged Hillary on purpose?

    [41]

    Gawd I hope your joking about Geithner!

  45. [45] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Joe picks a baloney sandwich for VP and I'm a-votin' for him. Picks Geithner and I'm still voting for him...and heading over to Team DSA - FUCK YEAH!

  46. [46] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    G'Nite sports fans...

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    G'nite. And, I'm desperately serious.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think I luv you, MtnCaddy. :)

  49. [49] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [48]

    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
    I think I luv you, MtnCaddy. :)

    At long last I can go to be with Jesus now that that good hearted Canuck gal Elizabeth Miller has finally noticed me - woot!

  50. [50] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yo, Elizabeth --

    I grew up across the river from Windsor and I probably have more family DNA in Central and Eastern Canadia than down here in the States. You sure as bleep know a lot about various aspects of American politics. Er, in which province do you reside?

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy (22)-
    The flaws in your reasoning are covered in comment 11, 24 and 36.

    Why are you always asking me questions if you are not going to respond to the answers and why won't you answer my questions?

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Schumer gets MIDDOTW for better rhetoric (AKA-Bullshit) than Biden?

    What a crock of shit.

    What about how the big money Dems teargassed the protesters in the Dem primaries to clear the way for Biden to wave the big money Dems bible (you have no other choice)?

    Why do you keep spewing this bullshit? Why are we just supposed to accept Biden as is? Why doesn't he have to actually be anything other than not Trump?

    Why doesn't he have to step up and do the right thing by committing to a small donor only campaign to earn our votes?

    Why won't you do the right thing and demand the Dems purge big money from the party?

    What is wrong with you?

    ALL LIES MATTER. (not a typo)

    Some truth and reality would be a nice change around here.

  53. [53] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    MtnCaddy

    Liz doesn't live in any "province", she lives in a STATE (specifically, the 'state' of naivete!

  54. [54] 
    John M wrote:

    [24] Don Harris wrote:

    "One thing different about 2020 is that Bernie was screwed again in the primaries and many of his supporters may not be so willing to vote for Biden this time (if they are not stupid enough to keep being deceived)."

    This is simply NOT TRUE.

    1) The DNC did not have its finger on the scale against Bernie this time.

    2) Bernie never grew his base of support beyond his original voters between his contest against Hillary and his contest against Biden. His base of support remained exactly the same.

    "How can anyone at this point still not see through Biden's deception? Biden supporters are as pitiful as Trump supporters."

    3) Bernie never got the support among black and minority voters that he needed. Biden regained that support during the South Carolina primary and never lost it after that. That's the single biggest reason Biden is the party nominee and not Bernie.

  55. [55] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    We don't know yet what the DNC did or didn't do in the primaries.

    But we do know that the establishment candidates strategically dropped out in timing that benefited Biden.

    And the media did their part.

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    people out there still had to vote, and they voted overwhelmingly in favor of biden. if supporters of other candidates who dropped out had not been inclined to vote for him anyway, they wouldn't have.

  57. [57] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    The conditions exist and have existed in every election for One Demand to work.

    Really??? You have a total of ZERO candidates who are willing to meet your OneDemand’s one demand.

    It might not, in fact it is likely to not be 100% effective in it's first election cycle,

    Wow! So you do momentarily rejoin our reality from time to time...interesting.

    …but that is more of a reason to start it now then to wait for the conditions to become perfect for 100% effectiveness before starting it.

    Except you still have NO candidates that support your philosophy or even unwittingly meet your requirements.

    So this is the best time to pressure Biden to step up and prove that beating Trump is more important than protecting the big money interests by demanding he run a small donor only campaign in the general election to earn our votes.

    I thought the purpose of OneDamnMan was to rid us of Big Money candidates in politics. Biden has already accepted donations larger than your $200 purity test allows. He’s corrupt... if you truly believe your own bullshit. In fact, your willingness to ignore that fact really makes it difficult to know what your one demand actually is. Why would you not say that he is “bought and paid for” if he has already accepted and likely spent their money?

    Just one in ten registered Dems contributing 200 dollars would be around 600 million dollars. Another one in ten contributing 100 dollars is another 300 million and another one in ten contributing 50 dollars puts the total over 1 billion.

    What percentage of registered Dems currently donate money (any denomination/amount) to presidential candidates?

    Are you saying three in ten Dems would not make these contributions if Biden made this commitment?

    Are you saying it would not get Biden more votes?

    Why does no one here answer these questions?

    Just because you ignore the answers we have given you countless times before does not mean that no one has answered your questions.

    But I’ll recap our answers... No, your demands won’t work because no one believes in your mission as it exists now. You have no candidates that agree to your terms. And you have no active voters who are willing to waste their vote by writing their own name in on the ballot to send a message that only you will get. There is no demand from the masses, only from OneDamnMan! And even if you ignore those “minor glitches” the real problem is still that you focus only on policing the chump change
    raised by the campaign directly while ignoring the billions of dollars that get pumped into PAC’s. You cannot police the candidates for PACs which they have no official ties to...possibly because by law a candidate cannot be directly in charge of a PAC.

    I have answered your questions, so now I will wait for you to answer what percentage of registered Dems currently donate to presidential campaigns.

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    I was going back over last Friday’s posts to make sure I hadn’t forgotten to respond to anyone when I noticed your last post regarding the ME’s official report.

    Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression

    Manner of death: Homicide

    How injury occurred: Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)

    I am not sure how the prosecution is going to prove that the use of a non-lethal method of restraining a suspect directly caused cardiopulmonary arrest. There is no way to know whether Floyd was already suffering from cardiopulmonary arrest when the officer’s first contacted him and was why the medics were called (how the arrest was affecting him could easily be confused for complications from drug use).

    This means that the prosecutors are going to have to show that the officers were not following SOP guidelines for “use of force”. But since the knee to neck maneuver calls for pressure to only be administered when the person is actively resisting, they will need to show that Chauvin was intentionally applying pressure to Floyd when he was unconscious and that Chauvin did not just have his knee resting on Floyd’s neck. Not really sure how that is going to be possible.

  59. [59] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [57]

    ...the real problem is still that you focus only on policing the chump change
    raised by the campaign directly while ignoring the billions of dollars that get pumped into PAC’s. You cannot police the candidates for PACs which they have no official ties to...possibly because by law a candidate cannot be directly in charge of a PAC.

    That's a biggie for me.

    Additionally,

    (1) I am not convinced that the (theoretical) groundswell of support for a "small doner" candidate would obviate policy (and personality/chemistry) differences between the voter and said candidate.

    (2) We have a pandemic along with the 2nd Great Depression going on right now. The effects of both will NOT be gone by November. (indeed, I don't see these effects being entirely gone by even November 2021!) Americans by the millions are and will continue to struggle to keep body and soul together. So where are the legions of "energized by One Demand" voters going to get the money to contribute?

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    I am not sure how the prosecution is going to prove that the use of a non-lethal method of restraining a suspect directly caused cardiopulmonary arrest. There is no way to know whether Floyd was already suffering from cardiopulmonary arrest when the officer’s first contacted him and was why the medics were called (how the arrest was affecting him could easily be confused for complications from drug use).

    I know you wrote that but, I'm not sure you understand just how non-serious it reads.

    I think the evidence clearly shows that Floyd wasn't "suffering from cardiopulmonary arrest" before the officer put a knee on his neck and kept it there until the paramedics arrived and made him take it off.

    I'm guessing the defense team isn't going to be presenting that - because they don't want to be laughed out of court!

    And, the non-lethal method of restraining an individual was quite obviously misused by the officer - to the point where it became a very lethal method.

    If the defense team wins this case, based in part on your analysis of what happened, then I think the protests you see now in the streets - of America and the world - are nothing more than a warm-up act.

  61. [61] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I think the evidence clearly shows that Floyd wasn't "suffering from cardiopulmonary arrest" before the officer put a knee on his neck and kept it there until the paramedics arrived and made him take it off.

    No offense Liz, but you clearly have no idea of how “cause of death” is determined. What evidence are you talking about? Floyd could have been suffering a heart attack for hours and you would not be able to visually tell what was going on. The only evidence will be found in the medical examiner’s autopsy of Mr. Floyd.

    Yes, the video is horrible to watch! It is heartbreaking to view him begging for his life, and the officer’s look like soulless bastards for the way they ignore his pleas. We want justice for Mr. Floyd; but we must remember that the law has to view the events that took place based on the facts, and void of emotional sentiment.

    *Was Officer Chauvin’s use of the knee to neck restraint on Mr. Floyd justified? Yes, Floyd had resisted arrest and it required four to six officers to force compliance from Floyd.

    *Was Chauvin’s use of the knee to neck restraint improperly administered? Did Chauvin use excessive force in his administration of the restraint? Determining those answers is going to be the real crux of the trial.

    *Did the officer’s violate the department's guideline and SOP for restraining a combative individual thought to be having a bad drug reaction? The officers already had called for medical aid. If they should have let him up when he was hollering that he could not breathe is going to be for the officers to explain their actions.

    *If Chauvin is responsible causing Floyd’s death by cardiopulmonary arrest, where on the back of your neck triggers a heart attack with the proper pressure applied?

    *Why would the state authorize and train the police to use such a potentially deadly maneuver to restrain a person? Hint...they wouldn’t and it isn’t.

    Yes, these questions may seem snarky, but they are not meant as an insult — they are legitimate questions that need to be answered to demonstrate that the officer’s were acting irresponsibly and negligently.

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    40

    So, absent the visit between Bill and Lynch on that tarmac in Phoenix, it would have been AG Lynch who gave the announcement of no charges against Hillary. And, Comey would have had no public role to play in the whole sordid affair.

    You sure about that? There's much more to this story that is already public and more still that may or may never be made public. Remember that Comey sent a letter in late October regarding the reopening of the closed investigation of HRC because of emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop, which correspondence of Comey's was immediately leaked by Representative Jason Chaffetz. You might remember that Chaffetz retired shortly thereafter.

    The meeting on the tarmac wouldn't have precluded Comey sending that correspondence, would it? Of course not. It was that "October surprise" that was in no way whatsoever a surprise to Rudy Giuliani the Trump campaign, and the odds are better that you will win the Canadian lottery than to see Comey again named Director of the FBI. :)

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    57

    Brilliant post. :)

    OneDamnMan! *spew alert* *laughed 'til it hurt*

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    58

    I was going back over last Friday’s posts to make sure I hadn’t forgotten to respond to anyone when I noticed your last post regarding the ME’s official report.

    Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression

    Manner of death: Homicide

    How injury occurred: Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)

    I am not sure how the prosecution is going to prove that the use of a non-lethal method of restraining a suspect directly caused cardiopulmonary arrest.

    The autopsy clearly states on its face that the examiner concluded that "restraint and neck compression" and "subdual" [the act of being subdued] by law enforcement were contributing factors in Mr. Floyd's death and concludes the manner of death is a homicide.

    There is no way to know whether Floyd was already suffering from cardiopulmonary arrest when the officer’s first contacted him and was why the medics were called (how the arrest was affecting him could easily be confused for complications from drug use).

    Yes, there is video evidence showing Mr. Floyd in no distress whatsoever prior to being handcuffed by Officer Lane (a rookie), and as I explained in a prior post, they'll likely flip (at minimum) Lane (who recommended on multiple occasions that Chauvin take other action)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/06/02/blessed-are-the-warmakers/#comment-160084

    to testify as to the events of the day and Mr. Floyd being in no distress until he was pulled from the vehicle by Chauvin and held down in such a manner by 3 of them as to cause his death in a manner they quite obviously knew could be dangerous.

    This means that the prosecutors are going to have to show that the officers were not following SOP guidelines for “use of force”. But since the knee to neck maneuver calls for pressure to only be administered when the person is actively resisting, they will need to show that Chauvin was intentionally applying pressure to Floyd when he was unconscious and that Chauvin did not just have his knee resting on Floyd’s neck. Not really sure how that is going to be possible.

    The autopsy findings that Mr. Floyd's death is a homicide at least partially caused by the "restraint" of the officers and "neck compression" is all they need for a conviction of either murder or manslaughter. The term "cardiopulmonary arrest" simply means his heart and breathing stopped, which is quite simply what happens when everyone dies. The autopsy of the Hennepin County Medical Examiner clearly concludes the officers' actions caused Mr. Floyd's death... not to mention the other autopsy.

    Isn't it weird how we say "not to mention" when we actually just mentioned the thing we say we're not mentioning? But I digress.

    I hear now that they actually have flipped all three officers against Chauvin. Lane's testimony will be crucial to get a conviction... which is still not bloody likely that you'll get 12 jurors to agree to convict a police officer of murder... unless they were to have the testimony of multiple other officers' testimony weighing in on the other side of the scales of justice.

    I also hear (unconfirmed) that Officer Chauvin's reputation/history is not going to help him in the least and that his wife announced she was filing for divorce immediately upon hearing the news.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    IIIIIII'mmmmm baaaaack.... :D

    http://sjfm.us/pics/Surgery1.jpg

    Just a little story (for anyone who cares) on what I have been up to since waa?? Tuesday??? Fair warning, lots of detail.. Very long... Why so verbose?? That will come out later...

    Anyways, moving on.. Other than the constant grinding of my ribs (4 to be exact, more on that later) every time I took a breath, it was rather a fun hospital stay...

    Show up for surgery at 1030 hrs Tues, 2 Jun 2020 , for an 1130hrs date with the open heart surgeon. Keep in mind that this surgery was originally scheduled back on the 25th or 26th but had to be postponed because my potassium and .. er. "creatine" levels were too high and would have resulted in my death due to anesthetic..

    By all means.. Let's postpone.. Don't want THAT happening, eh??

    So, they are prepping me for surgery.. I was told to fast since midnight of the previous night (standard fare) but was also told not to take any medication.. So, by the time surgery was rolling around, I was pretty much in agony from my ribs constant grinding and not being allowed to take my lortabs..

    "Oh my, you should have taken your pain pills.. THAT would have been OK..." the nurse says..

    To paraphrase Adam Sandler in THE WEDDING SINGER, "Something that would have been good to know THIS MORNING!!!!"... So, after a couple hours of sheer bliss.. {sic}, they come into the OR Prep and said that my potassium and creatine levels were again to high...

    I just lost it.. Keep in mind that I have been this way since the first week of Jan 2020.. The thought of having to go thru another week of this.. Well, as I said.. I just lost it.. A "nefrologist"?? (Kidney Doctor) happened to be making hospital rounds that morning and they said they would get him to drop in and check on me.. I was resigned to the fact that I was going to have to go home and live with this for another way.. Of course the thought of that caused sever stress, which in turn caused hyperventilating which, in turn, caused more severe grinding which, in turn caused more intense paid.. I was in tears by the time the kidney doctor stopped in. He took one look at me and turned to the nurse and said, "We can't send him home like this"...

    Long story short (too late!! :D) they admitted me for the night, got me a room in the Renal Unit and started to go to work on me.. Keep in mind (at the risk of sounding like a pansy) I was completely alone in all of this.. The hospital was operating under COVID guidelines and no visitors were allowed.. Those of you who know me know how much I love and depend on my wife so, not having her there made things 20 times more stressful...

    First order of business.. Get this body pumped up with pain medication!! First a percocet and then injections of Dualin(sp??) every 3 hours...

    As it turns out, it was discovered that what was causing my potassium and creatine levels to skyrocket was my Linsiprol (Blood Pressure) and Spironactlol (Diruetic) morning pills...

    After injections of a myriad of drugs and no less than 36 needles to draw blood... I shit you not.. I have some of the worse veins for drawing blood and am a huge challenge to even the most seasoned phlebotomist...

    All of this was Tuesday into Tuesday night.. Along about 2230 hrs Tues night, my nurse said, "You have to fast starting at midnight because of your surgery tomorrow"

    WHat!!!????

    "Oh?? No one told you??"

    NNNNoooooooooo!!!! :D

    OK, so the surgery is on.. Because I was pretty much at the point where I say, "Just do the surgery W/O anesthetic!!!" So, dodged THAT bullet!!

    So, got maybe 30 min of sleep that night.. After the first couple times, the effects of the Dualin(sp??) started to be less and less helpful..

    By the time 1130 rolled around, I was SOOOOO ready to get this fixed... So, they rolled me into the pre-op room and I don't remember anything after that...

    3 hours later, I woke up in the open heart ICU with 2 or three other patients..

    Interesting coincidence, one of the floor nurses in there was the same floor nurse I had with my original open heart surgery back in Nov..

    Almost done.. :D

    Surgeon comes to see me and told me in his 25 years of doing surgery that he has never seen ribs so damaged before.. The bottom 4 ribs on my right side were literally pulverized... So, he had to put in a titanium plate about the size of a dinner plate to attach all the ribs..

    On the PLUS side, it can stop up to a 9mm at close range... :D Not that I intend to test that theory, but it's good ta know, nevertheless.. :D

    "FurtherTheLess is NOT a word!! STOP using it!!!"
    -Charlie Sheen. SPIN CITY

    So, we come to the end of my saga.. One note of highlight.. Coming back from the bathroom (I was pretty mobile once the anesthetic wore off) I was in those hospital gowns that tie in the back.. And was wearing nothing else.. Since there were other patients in the open bay recovery room (some of the female persuasion) I made an attempt to wrap my arm around my back and hold the robe to cover my ass.. As I got back into my curtained off "room", I turned to the nurse and told him, "I tried to cover my butt.. Did I do it...'half-assed'...???" Mickey got a kick out of that... :D

    Anyway, that's how my week went.. :D

    How was ya'all's?? Did I miss anything fun??? :D

    Let me read what I missed.. :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Right off the bat..

    I also hear (unconfirmed) that Officer Chauvin's reputation/history is not going to help him in the least and that his wife announced she was filing for divorce immediately upon hearing the news.

    Which has no legal, moral or ethical bearing on ANYTHING relevant..

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Excellent comments on EVERYTHING to do with the Floyd issue..

    Much is being made of the Family-Paid-For autopsy report..

    Dr Baden is well known for doing follow-up autopsies that say exactly what the people who pay him wants it to say...

    His is an opinion for hire.. For sale to whomever pays him...

    Nothing more...

    No one can point to a single solitary fact that the Floyd death has ANYTHING related to a racial component..

    There are simply NO FACTS to support ANY claim of racism in this incident..

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA....

    But, of course, racist activists don't need FACTS when they have hysterical emotionalism on their side...

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    What's the matter with the Buffalo Police Department, or a big chunk of it, at least?

    Pushing down an elderly man who has probably seen steadier days on his feet, watching him tumble and crack his scull on the pavement and then just walk past him as if nothing had happened?

    I can't watch the video without tearing up.

    What kind of human beings are they?

    You do realize that that was staged, right??

    The protester is a well-known anti-cop agitator and it's been documented on his past antics...

    You can tell from the video that it was staged. They guy just got too into the role and cracked his head on the side-walk..

    The ONLY thing the cop is guilty of is being provoked into such an action...

    Surely warrants a reprimand, but not a criminal charge.. Even the mayor who ordered the charge now claims it was a staged set up...

    Nothing is going to happen to the Buffalo cops or the Minneapolis cops save a reprimand. Chauvin (like Darren Wilso) will likely be forced to quite due to mob pressure...

    But it IS interesting to note...

    All of the city's that have had cop brutality issues??

    ALL Democrat cities...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Defund the Police???

    Are you people frakin' KIDDING me!!!!!

    This is NOW a Democrat platform..

    DEFUNDING THE POLICE..

    How utterly moronic and totally stoopid is that..

    Please... PLEASE tell me that there is no one here who actually BELIEVES that defunding the police is a good idea..

    I mean, many (most) of ya'all are so ate up with your political bigotry, you'll buy ANYTHING that the Democrat Party spews..

    But PLEASE tell me that none of ya'all are really actually THAT stoopid to think that defunding police departments and SOs is a good idea...

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    California ambush leaves 1 deputy dead, 2 officers hurt

    FBI probes possible link between Air Force sergeant suspected in ambush killing of CA deputy and officer's
    murder

    A federal officer was shot to death during protests in Oakland on May 29

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/northern-california-sheriffs-deputy-killed-ambush-shooting-bombing/story?id=71119099

    Funny.. In a sad and pathetic way..

    Where is the Floyd-esque condemnation from Left Wingers and Weigantians???

    Apparently, no one on the Left (sans Russ(I am sure)) seems to care about dead cops as much as they care about their faux cop/racism agenda.. :^(

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since Tuesday, upwards of 5 or 6 cops have been killed in the line of duty...

    Apparently, they don't deserve the same sympathy as one froggy combative scumbag high on meth and fentanyl...

    "Gee!!! I wonder why that is!!!!"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    This week, an American president ordered the violent removal of peaceful protesters --

    Peaceful protesters my left arse cheek!!

    Oh sure, they start out "peaceful"..

    And then they are this....

    https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/blogs/gettyimages-471381728.jpg?itok=Lw0EDgoV

    Ya'all have a funny definition of "peaceful"... :^/

    This is all 1968 all over again..

    And ya'all remember how well 1968 went for the Democrat Party, eh?? :^/

    That's the only silver lining here.. All of the cop killings, all of the looting, the destruction, the arsons, the murders..

    All of it guarantees a President Trump re-election..

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sincere apologies for running hot and cold today.. As I alluded above, there is a very good reason...

    I will clarify once I get it all sorted and right and proper in my head...

    To those I would call friends, please bear with me.. To those I wouldn't..?? Frak ya'all.. hehehehe :D Just kidding.. :D

    I am actually in a pretty good mood considering the events of the last couple days... The wonders of modern pain pills... :D

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://sjfm.us/pics/3men.jpg

    Every American, black, white, red, yellow, green, purple polka dots...

    EVERY American has the same opportunity...

    It's the choices and decisions they make in pursuit of that opportunity that determines their lot in life..

    NOTHING more...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
    -Martin Luther King

    George Floyd is being judged based on the color of his skin, NOT the content of his character..

    No one, least of all me, is saying that racism doesn't exist.. Of course it does.. Racism, hate, bigotry... It all exits...

    But institutionalized racism?? Racism by policy??

    Doesn't exist.. Not since we elected a black American as President..

    Don't believe me?? Fine.. Prove me wrong..

    With FACTS.... Not cherry picked statistics, not theory, not some whimsical intersectionality fairy..

    Stone Cold FACTS... If you don't have any facts to support your argument, then you HAVE no argument..

    George Floyd is dead for one reason and one reason only.. He CHOSE to ingest meth and fentanyl and then he CHOSE to commit a crime and then CHOSE to become combative and resist arrest..

    He fought the law.. The law won.. It's as simple as that..

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    You sure about that? There's much more to this story that is already public and more still that may or may never be made public. Remember that Comey sent a letter in late October regarding the reopening of the closed investigation of HRC because of emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop, which correspondence of Comey's was immediately leaked by Representative Jason Chaffetz. You might remember that Chaffetz retired shortly thereafter.
    The meeting on the tarmac wouldn't have precluded Comey sending that correspondence, would it? Of course not.

    Ah, yeah … I'm pretty sure.

    Your October surprise had nothing to do with the tarmac issue which catapulted Comey into the Clinton email mess, in the first place.

    You will recall that when Comey testified before Congress about all of this, he made a promise to lawmakers that he would inform them if any new evidence materialized that would have an impact on the Clinton email mess. He did precisely that.

    In any event, the Clintons - in this case, it's all on Bill - can't seem to stay out of trouble. Here's hoping they've learned their lesson, at long last!

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Floyd could have been suffering a heart attack for hours and you would not be able to visually tell what was going on. The only evidence will be found in the medical examiner’s autopsy of Mr. Floyd.

    Right. Whatever you say. I'm done with this nonsense.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I'm glad everything went well! :)

    And, I wish I could say that I'm glad you're back but, it's been pleasant around here without your comments raising my own blood pressure.

    I mean that sincerely. I'm not trying to be facetious here.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, the video is horrible to watch! It is heartbreaking to view him begging for his life, and the officer’s look like soulless bastards for the way they ignore his pleas. We want justice for Mr. Floyd; but we must remember that the law has to view the events that took place based on the facts, and void of emotional sentiment.

    Give me a freakin' break. Now, I'm done.

  80. [80] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    So there are zero candidates that meet the demand.

    Citizens have not made the demand yet.

    There were no candidates running the Bernie small contribution model until Bernie did it in 2015-16 and then there were many in 2018.

    The purpose of One Demand is to get citizens to work together to make the demand rather than wait for candidates to do it on their own.

    There were no candidates many years ago that supported gay marriage until people worked together to demand it.

    The organization comes first, not the candidates.

    You call it a purity test and then contradict yourself. If it was a purity test then what a candidate has done in the past would matter and what they are doing now would not (see MeToo).

    One Demand is no different than accepting a candidate that changed their position on gay marriage or any other issue.

    What Dems have contributed in the past is irrelevant.
    As you point out there have not been candidates making this commitment.

    Until Bernie ran his small contribution campaign there had not been many small contributors and that increased dramatically once the choice was offered.

    I have no one here that supports the idea.

    As I pointed out when CW asked for just ONE person the majority of comments at Common Dreams like the idea.

    As the vast majority of citizens do not know the opportunity exists they can't decide to participate or not.

    The law that says candidates cannot work with PACs is not enforced.

    Citizens can use their votes to enforce the demand by not voting for candidates that work with PACs.

    And it will take more than one election cycle, just like 2018 was one step in a multi election strategy.

    So I answered your questions again. Yet you will probably make the same ridiculous claims in future threads ignoring that it has already been addressed.

    Mtn Caddy-
    If 3 in ten registered Dems can't afford to make the small donor contributions, even in the current situation, then we are in much more trouble than any candidate can solve.

    Of course, this could have been addressed with Emergency Political Contribution Vouchers. There was even some support for that idea here.

    But CW (and other media) also chose not to offer this idea to citizens.

    The idea is no good because it doesn't have any support doesn't hold up when citizens have not been offered the choice because they can't decide to support an idea if they don't know about it.

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think it is high time, Don, that YOU do something that will actually inform people about it so they know about it.

    And, here's a piece of free advice, there are too few people here in these comments sections to make much of a difference.

    Why not submit a piece about it to the New York Times, you know.

  82. [82] 
    John M wrote:

    [65] Michale wrote:

    "After injections of a myriad of drugs and no less than 36 needles to draw blood... I shit you not.. I have some of the worse veins for drawing blood and am a huge challenge to even the most seasoned phlebotomist..."

    We have something in common there. I have been told by multiple medical personnel that my veins are small and deep. They usually have to use a butterfly needle on me (the smallest needle made) and go thru the back of my hand, where the veins are closest to the surface of the skin. When I had my heart attack at Walmart, the ambulance had to stop in the parking lot while they blew at least four of the veins in each arm trying to get an I.V. in me on the way to the hospital. I was so bruised afterwards.

  83. [83] 
    John M wrote:

    [77] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Russ,

    Floyd could have been suffering a heart attack for hours and you would not be able to visually tell what was going on. The only evidence will be found in the medical examiner’s autopsy of Mr. Floyd.

    Right. Whatever you say. I'm done with this nonsense."

    I have to agree with Elizabeth being a skeptic here. Unless you yourself have experienced a heart attack, believe me it is not like anything else you will ever experience. I knew something was wrong when mine started but I was an idiot and like most people ignored it at first and went on to work anyway. Until I no longer could ignore it and ended up laying prostrate across the table in the employee break room at Walmart, cold, clammy, sweating, pale, shaking, having difficulty breathing and in pain.

    And then getting to the hospital and having a perfectly normal EKG! My heart attack presented itself as a highly unusual backward case. My blood work went all to hell first, presenting itself as a heart attack, and only later did my EKG follow. For most people, it is exactly the other way around. Their EKG goes all wonky first, and then their blood work follows.

    Therefore, I seriously doubt Floyd could have been having an unknown heart attack for hours.

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, what are the chances, do you think, that Floyd is having a heart attack hours before he can't breathe because an officer's knee is on his neck for almost 9 minutes while on his stomach and handcuffed?

    I think I'd have a better chance of winning the "Canadian lottery"! Ahem.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Yea, my veins are large and prominent so nurses think they will have an easy time of it.. But they like to squirm out of the way once the needle penetrates the skin. Normally I turn away during this but I watched one nurse.. She put the length of the entire needle in my arm trying to tie down this one vein..

    I was already in so much pain from the ribs, I didn't really feel the needle much, but it was fascinating to watch.. :D

    Back of my hand is also the fav spot for me too.. :D

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    glad you came through it okay. just because you can stop a small caliber bullet now doesn't mean you need to go out there and be a hero.

    as for us, baby is 2 and a half weeks old, and i had a weird, inconclusive covid screening. although they didn't find the specific covid-19 protein, the result was not entirely negative for related proteins, so as a precaution i couldn't be in the hospital for delivery or recovery. none of the typical symptoms yet, and i'm waiting on follow-up results.

    here's my reading from yesterday:

    https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0603-letter-cop-protester-20200603-vzznpesjw5fu3p3fwrkxhja3cq-story.html

    JL

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I'm glad everything went well! :)

    Danke.. :D

    And, I wish I could say that I'm glad you're back but, it's been pleasant around here without your comments raising my own blood pressure.

    I can imagine... I had actually planned to be gone a little while longer.. But the current issue had MY blood pressure up and I knew I needed to vent about it or I would explode..

    Ya'all are just lucky that, when it comes to issues like this, this is where I like to vent. :D

    I mean that sincerely. I'm not trying to be facetious here.

    Your sincerity has NEVER been in any doubt.. :D

  88. [88] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale- [70]

    First off, it's sad this guy died but it was in the line of duty and not anywhere near protests. The criminal involved was one of yours as well. Military and tea party. It's too early to tell for sure, but it looks like he was planning something big...

    I know to want to throw police deaths at us with the end of watch stuff, but statistically policing is very middle of the road as far as dangerous jobs go. If you really want to honor the fallen for a dangerous job, you should be honoring the workers in fisheries. They are way beyond any other occupation. Hell, taxi drivers are more likely to die by violence than police officers. When was the last time you memorialized a taxi driver? Ya, didn't think so...

    I lived in Ben Lomond for many years. I use to work graveyard and kept similar hours on my off days. Every new deputy from this department had to pull me over at 2:30 in the morning for some flimsy reason to fish for a DUI. I personally don't have much respect for the Santa Cruz County sheriffs that patrol the San Lorenzo valley. I would not wish them dead, but their policing needs some serious reform.

    I don't see you condemning the vast and filmed police brutality on peaceful protesters. Why is that?

    And remember, the party in power lost in 1968...

    118,498 Americans dead from Coronavirus and counting...

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right.. I have a few mins now..

    First off, let me say right up front, that this is all about a computer game...

    Yea, I know.. I know.. totally frivolous I'll be the first to admit... But considering how much I enjoyed that game and, since I can't work and the most strenuous thing I can do is type on a pooter, it's a big part of my life..

    I am, of course, talking about Modern Warfare 2019...

    Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Adds Black Lives Matter Screen
    Also plans more stringent moderation

    Those playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare or its Battle Royale associate Call of Duty: Warzone will be met with a Black Lives Matter screen this week, as Activision and Infinity Ward pledge their voices to the movement. The splash appears during various loading screens, and is part of a wider push from the franchise to improve its community.

    “The systemic inequalities our community experiences are once again centre stage,” the statement reads. “Call of Duty and Infinity Ward stand for equality and inclusion. We stand against the racism and injustice our Black community endures. Until change happens and Black Lives Matter, we will never truly be the community we strive to be.”

    This comes after the developer announced initiatives to crack down on racism in its game. As part of a statement issued earlier in the week, the studio said: “There is no place for racist content in our game. This is an effort we began with launch and we need to do a better job. We're issuing thousands of bans of racist and hate-orientated names. But we know we have more to do.”
    https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2020/06/call_of_duty_modern_warfare_adds_black_lives_matter_screen

    Politics in our movies and TV shows and concerts and the like has become common place..

    Then politics moved to our football games.. Which bummed me off watching the Jaguars.. Which, to be honest, I didn't miss much..

    NOW we have radical Left Wing politics in our First Person Shooter Combat games..

    Holy hell!!!!????

    By way of comparison..

    Way Way back when, when Bashi and I were not only civil to each other, but actually had friendly chats about computer games, Bashi was a big GTA fan.. Given my military/police background, I never saw the attraction of ghetto/gangsta games, but to each their own.. Bashi was pretty heavy into it at the time..

    Dunno if he still is or not..

    But by way of comparison, I would ask how Bashi (or anyone else who has a particular computer game (SIMS, SIM CITY, etc etc etc) that they simply LOVED to play... How would they feel if, all of the sudden there was RE-ELECT PRESIDENT TRUMP content and PRO PRESIDENT TRUMP content and PRESIDENT TRUMP IS SO AWESOME content suddenly thrust in their game..

    How would one feel if your last bastion of peace and fun was suddenly inundated with political content.. Not only that, but political content that you hated and despised and was totally 1000% against to the very fiber of your being??

    I am guessing it would be a little depressing, would it not??

    I know, I know.. It's just a game.. And it is, no doubt...

    But it's also, giving my current health circumstances, one of the ONLY things I can do these days.. That and list shit on EBAY...

    So, when that last bastion is overrun with political content that promotes a group that is, for all intents and purposes, a TERRORIST organization...

    Well, that depresses me..

    So, call me silly.. I have been called worse.. But that is pretty much why I am running hot and cold these days.. I get bummed out and then pain pills take effect and I am in an OK place and then I am sitting on my thumbs so I figure I'll load up a match or 2 of MW2019 and see ads for a TERRORIST group splashed on every screen of my desktop and I get depressed all over..

    And what makes it all the more galling is the in-game "chat" that is in game/matches.. It's all "nigger" this and "nigga" that.. Literally ALL the time... I shit you not.. So it's doubly pissing me off that TPTB that run the MW2019 game servers ALLOW this type of racist bullshit to permeate their servers!!! The hypocrisy is disgusting!!!!

    And, since I don't like to use Facebook, ya'all are the lucky ones that get to be part of my depression and therapy...

    Don't ya'all just feel so blessed and lucky??? :D

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I don't see you condemning the vast and filmed police brutality on peaceful protesters. Why is that?

    Simple..

    Because I have yet to see any actions by police that JUSTIFIES condemnation..

    All I see is good police work...

    There has been one or two that I condemned (an incident in South Carolina, if I recall correctly)..

    But, by and large, it's as Russ has said...

    Officer Chauvin used a legitimate police restraining technique that is taught in police academies nationwide..

    Up until Floyd became combative, he was in total and complete control of events.. Once he became combative and resisted arrest, events swept past his ability to control them..

    Further, it wasn't Officer Chauvin's legitimate restraining hold that killed Floyd..

    It was his heart issues and the meth and fentynal in his system that killed him..

    Yea, I know, I know.. The family has a paid for autopsy result from a Dr who is infamous for being available to give whatever autopsy result a grieving family once as long as they pay for it...

    Floyd is dead from his own choices and this is nothing but a political issue.. Which is easy to prove..

    Had Floyd been white, you and I would not be having this conversation...

  91. [91] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (81)-
    What do you think I am doing?

    One way is to contact media to get them to write about it.

    I have contacted hundreds of journalists, activists, organizations and got a few responses that said it was a good idea but they were too busy to do anything about it or making the ridiculous claim that people must support the idea before they can be informed about it.

    I have submitted hundreds of articles and have only received a few responses saying it would be free advertising to run my article while they provide the same "free advertising" to many authors promoting their books, organizations, ideas. (They also ignored when I inquired about advertising.)

    Not one has explained why the idea is not good.

    Yes. There are too few people reading comments sections.

    That is why CW should put it in an article.

    And I will continue to follow the advice of Ralph Nader to keep asking until I get an answer on why citizens should not be informed or citizens are informed about One Demand, something that CW has lauded many others for doing.

  92. [92] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Not one has explained why the idea is not good.

    Because you take it to an extreme that will never happen. I also suspect the success of One Demand is inversely proportional to the number of bong hits taken by it's main proponent...

  93. [93] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    I feel for you on the video game front. I had to turn off the sound from the other players in GTA. Between the squeakers and the back wood hicks vs ghetto brothers profanity battles, it just got intolerable.

    GTA spoofs American society, left, right, police, hippy, it doesn't matter there's a joke in there covering all. I doubt RockStar would do such a political act unless it was for spoof purposes. But then I have been battling zombies in Oregon and have not booted up that game in a while...

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I think it's fair to say that we have our differences.. And I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that our differences are EPIC...

    But I think it's also safe to say that we are of the same mind on this issue..

    Heard it on the radio on the way home..

    Minneapolis City Council has voted, with a VETO-proof majority, to shut down and disband the Minneapolis Police Department..

    One of the council members stated... AND I QUOTE..

    "If someone needs to call the police, they will now simply call a neighbor or a social worker.."

    Get that???

    If your enraged ex-husband is trying to break down your door and he has a gun, your ONLY recourse is to call a neighbor or make an appointment with a social worker!!!

    How UNBELIEVABLY FRAK'ED UP IS THAT!!!????

    Is there **ANYONE** here who thinks this is viable?? That this will work in a medium to large city???

    I am just so angry about all of this I can't believe it!!!

    Would love to hear your thoughts on this...

    Here is my proposal...

    Suspend ALL police officers, correction officers, back office staff, all of it.. Suspend them all WITH pay...

    And then see what the city is like without law and order.. See how the neighborhoods BURN and how the stores are looted and burned and how society in Minneapolis breaks down AND BURNS....

    THEN come back to me and tell me what a great idea it is to defund the police..

    Gods, the stoopidity of people never ceases to amaze me!!

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I feel for you on the video game front. I had to turn off the sound from the other players in GTA. Between the squeakers and the back wood hicks vs ghetto brothers profanity battles, it just got intolerable.

    Thank you... Nice ta know that it's not just me..

    Or at least, not just ALL me.. :D

    Thanx

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Because I take it to an extreme that will never happen?

    Just like ending slavery, women voting, gay marriage, a black president, etc. would never happen?

    One way to make sure something never happens is for people to never find out about it, how it could happen and/or to only be told it can't happen.

    I wonder why if all those places contacted you explaining that it was something that could never happen that you waited until now to tell me. How else could you know that was their reason?

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz, 'Nuck,

    Apropos of absolutely nothing..

    The wife and I have gotten into a new show that hails from ya'all's neck of the woods...

    BURDEN OF TRUTH

    Kinda like a low-key BULL..

    It's weird sometimes to hear them mention Canadian cities instead of US ones.. :D

    It's up to Season 3. We're binge watching it and just finishing up with Season 1...

    If ya haven't watched it, I highly recommend.. :D

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    76

    Ah, yeah … I'm pretty sure.

    Your October surprise had nothing to do with the tarmac issue which catapulted Comey into the Clinton email mess, in the first place.

    You're "pretty sure," yet if you believe the "October surprise had nothing to do with the tarmac issue," then you've already conceded that Comey's correspondence stating that he was reopening the HRC email investigation that was leaked by Jason Chaffetz could have happened whether or not the tarmac incident ever happened. At that point, Comey was obviously the Director of the FBI making his own decisions for his own reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with the meeting on the tarmac but everything to do with other things... which may or may not later be made public... time will tell.

    You will recall that when Comey testified before Congress about all of this, he made a promise to lawmakers that he would inform them if any new evidence materialized that would have an impact on the Clinton email mess. He did precisely that.

    You're actually preaching to the choir, and as far as that "new evidence"... it neither happened to be "new" nor did it have any impact whatsoever on the Clinton email investigation, of course. The "discovery" of that not "new evidence" had happened several months before late October.

    Anyway, my point is neither to blame Director Comey nor Bill Clinton for the outcome of the 2016 election, which brings us back to your point wherein you keep consistently doing exactly that:

    And, with respect to the perfect storm you outlined above, Hillary has no one but her husband to blame for James Comey having anything to do with the outcome of the 2016 election, a fact that rarely gets mentioned. ~ Elizabeth Miller

    That whole "no one but her husband to blame for James Comey having anything to do with the outcome of the 2016 election" isn't a "fact," and I would not characterize your regular mentioning of it as "rarely" because every time you do it, I think to myself how ridiculous it is to continue to single out Bill Clinton for many of Director Comey's decisions.

    In any event, the Clintons - in this case, it's all on Bill - can't seem to stay out of trouble.

    "It's all on Bill" is an asinine thing to keep insisting, but I'm fine with you looking ridiculous in the not rare at all repetition of it.

    Here's hoping they've learned their lesson, at long last!

    As far as "learning their lesson," lots of people definitely seem determined to keep up repetitive mistakes; it's all part of being human and repetitive in nature... some definitely unequivocally much more so than others, of course. :)

  99. [99] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don-

    Just like ending slavery, women voting, gay marriage, a black president, etc. would never happen?

    That's a straw man. There is a huge difference between getting money out of politics as a general concept and treating a $200 or under donation as sacrosanct.

    Ralph Nader got off his ass and actively advocated for his causes rather than being a keyboard warrior while doing too many bong hits hoping others to do the work for him...

  100. [100] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Wow! Well, it is clear that your pain pills are definitely working! Glad to hear you survived your ordeal and are back at home, safe.

    And do not worry... I am sure that no one here read your account of what happened and are now questioning whether this was really just an elective procedure to remove your lower ribs so that you can go down on yourself...because that is not the type people that we are!

    R

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Heh... Funny... :D

  102. [102] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not a straw man at all.

    Legitimate examples of things that could never happen happening.

    Yes, there is a difference between getting the big money out of politics as a general concept and an actual approach that could achieve the goal.

    There is nothing sacrosanct about the 200 dollar limit.

    It is a common amount used to determine small donors and/or contributions. It is an amount that the majority of citizens can afford. It can provide enough money to run a campaign.

    And if citizens participate in One Demand and want to change it they can.

    Commenting here is part of what I do. I have spent money, passed out flyers and done many things and much more than many other people have done that get their ideas into the public discourse.

    Every time someone advises me I should do something when I do it then they then say that I must now do something else also.

    I am held to a standard that is not consistent with how others are treated.

    Everything else is well you can only get part of what you want right away and that is okay but One Demand must be perfect from the start and solve all problems right away.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Viral video: CNN guest says calling 911 on home intruder ‘comes from a place of privilege,’ sparks reaction

    Minneapolis City Council president Lisa Bender went viral on Monday morning when she told CNN that calling the police when your home is broken into “comes from a place of privilege,” before being lampooned by everyone from Sen. Ted Cruz to Donald Trump Jr.

    Bender brought some attention to CNN’s low-rated morning show “New Day” when she joined Alisyn Camerota to discuss her goal of dismantling the Minneapolis police department in the wake of George Floyd’s tragic death while in police custody.

    Bender said the police are not keeping everyone safe, and the first step of fixing the problem is to admit the current system isn’t working. Bender has said she can imagine a future without police, and has urged money to be redirected from a “militarized police force” to things she feels would greater benefit the community.

    “Do you understand that the word dismantle, or police-free, also makes some people nervous, for instance, what if, in the middle of the night, my home is broken into,” Camerota asked. “Who do I call?”

    “Yes, I mean I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege,” Bender responded. “For those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/viral-video-cnn-guest-calling-911-home-intruder-placeof-privelege

    This confirms it..

    Democrats have officially and obviously and completely gone insane...

    The insane are now in complete charge of the Democrat Party...

  104. [104] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M

    I have to agree with Elizabeth being a skeptic here. Unless you yourself have experienced a heart attack, believe me it is not like anything else you will ever experience. I knew something was wrong when mine started but I was an idiot and like most people ignored it at first and went on to work anyway. Until I no longer could ignore it and ended up laying prostrate across the table in the employee break room at Walmart, cold, clammy, sweating, pale, shaking, having difficulty breathing and in pain.

    Wait, you disagree that Floyd could have been experiencing his heart attack prior to encountering the police and then tell us how you ignored yours and were able to go into work. Hmmmm...”clammy, sweating...shaking, having difficulty breathing and in pain”... that sounds a lot like how you might describe how George Floyd looked in the video. Questions:

    You experienced those things without a police officer with his knee on the back of your neck?

    What did you do that day that, if you had not done it, could have allowed you to avoid having your heart attack?

    My point was that we know his cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest, so demonstrating how the officer’s actions were solely responsible for causing him to die is not going to be easy.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, if a Democrat dares to oppose such insanity, such obviously moronic and insane proposition???

    ‘Defund the police’ wrests support from politicians coast-to-coast – and steamrolls holdouts

    In the wake of George Floyd's death, calls to "defund the police" have in a matter of days escalated from a fringe campaign to a celebrity-backed cause to part of the municipal mainstream -- and now appear primed to spur official action, to varying degrees, in cities across the country.

    The stunning momentum behind the movement has fueled Republican criticism that "radical" ideas are being readily embraced by Democrats.

    On the ground, however, there is a visible conflict between Democrats on board with "defund" and those who want to seek reforms without actually dismantling police departments. This split, and the sudden power that activists wield over local officials on the issue, was perhaps best illustrated over the weekend when Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey faced a crowd of protesters asking him whether he would support abolishing the city's police department.

    Frey, while promising reform to the city's "systemically racist" policing system and saying "the police union needs to be put in its place," was asked a "yes or no" question by a protester if he would "commit to defunding the Minneapolis Police Department."

    "We don't want no more police," the woman questioning him continued. "Is that clear? We don't want people with guns toting around in our communities, shooting us down."

    "I do not support the abolition" of the police department, Frey said.

    He was immediately shouted down. "Get the f--- out of here," the protester responded as others loudly booed Frey, who later reiterated his commitment to reforming the department, despite saying he would not dismantle it entirely.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/defund-the-police-wrests-support-from-politicians-coast-to-coast-and-steamrolls-holdouts

    It's as clear as it is definitive... The insane now control the Democrat Party...

    If this wasn't really happening, I would call it an episode of BATMAN... Psychotic criminal masterminds plotting the criminal takeover of Gotham...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We don't want no more police," the woman questioning him continued. "Is that clear? We don't want people with guns toting around in our communities, shooting us down."

    "Yea!!! *WE* want to be the ones with the guns and gunning down our OWN people and gunning down cops without police interference!!!!!"

    It's so disgusting and perverse, made even MORE so by the fact that it's REALLY happening...

    THIS is the reality of today's Democrat Party...

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    My point was that we know his cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest, so demonstrating how the officer’s actions were solely responsible for causing him to die is not going to be easy.

    And I am sure the fentanyl and meth in his system didn't do Floyd any favors either...

    Floyd was a walking death scene just waiting to happen.. He was already dead before his run-in with Officer Chauvin..

    His body just didn't know it yet...

  108. [108] 
    Kick wrote:

    How would one feel if your last bastion of peace and fun was suddenly inundated with political content.. Not only that, but political content that you hated and despised and was totally 1000% against to the very fiber of your being??

    I am guessing it would be a little depressing, would it not??

    No, of course not. You're overthinking it.

    I know, I know.. It's just a game.. And it is, no doubt...

    No, it isn't "just a game" in your particular situation being that you have allowed it to become more than what it is and to depress you. It's basically the age-old commentary of art imitating life and vice versa. Art has and always will imitate life... nothing whatsoever there to be depressed about unless you find that life is so depressing that you need to escape it via a video game that is politically correct and suits your personal beliefs.

    Art will always imitate life... so video game art will do likewise, especially and particularly when the vast majority of video game players want to feel that they're indeed part of the lifelike action... like they're "in the game."

    Movies and television shows do the exact same thing, even some of the most fantastical and totally seemingly invented fantasies draw heavily from historical events... even if the viewer has no knowledge they're doing it. Relevant example: Game of Thrones and the Wars of the Roses. Art imitating life/history.

    Don't sweat the small stuff. Enjoy your game knowing that it's just a pixelated art graphic doing what art does and will always do.

    No reason to be depressed at all about that. :)

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    Why does everyone keep claiming Floyd was experiencing a heart attack? Are you reading the term "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" as cardiac arrest? The Medical Examiner has simply described that Mr. Floyd's heart and respiration stopped as a result of being restrained by law enforcement and having his neck compressed. It's definitely inartfully worded, that's for sure, but in no way whatsoever does this autopsy exonerate the officers... quite the opposite, in fact, it lists the officers' restraint and neck compression of Mr. Floyd as the direct cause of his homicide.

    How injury occurred: Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)

    Cardiopulmonary arrest is a sudden stop in effective and normal blood circulation due to failure of the heart to pump blood. That happens when everyone dies and is not indicative that Mr. Floyd's primary cause of death was a heart attack. Quite the contrary:

    Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression

    Manner of death: Homicide

    This autopsy lists the restraint and neck compression by law enforcement as the reason for his homicide.

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why does everyone keep claiming Floyd was experiencing a heart attack? Are you reading the term "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" as cardiac arrest?

    This autopsy lists the restraint and neck compression by law enforcement as the reason for his homicide.

    That was not in the official autopsy..

    That was in the autopsy that the family bought and paid for..

    It's a paid-for opinion.. Not a fact..

    The ONLY official, and therefore factual, is the one from the official ME.. Not the bought and paid for ME...

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Top Dems punt on ‘defund the police’ question

    A number of top Democrats seemingly are reluctant to speak out on the sudden momentum behind the movement to “defund the police,” as Minneapolis lawmakers announce they have the votes to do just that in their city -- the epicenter of the nation's unrest over the past two weeks.

    House and Senate Democrats on Monday held a press conference to unveil sweeping new legislation that, if passed, would increase accountability of police officers by banning certain practices and curbing immunity from legal consequences stemming from acts committed in the line of duty.

    During the press conference, though, the “defund the police” calls were not explicitly discussed as lawmakers guided the discussion more toward reform efforts.

    Later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., were asked by a CNN reporter if they supported the movement to defund the police entirely.

    “That’s a local decision,” Pelosi said, noting that they would have “those debates at the local level.”

    “That doesn’t mean we’re going to pile more money on to further militarize police,” she reportedly added, without directly addressing whether she supports the radical step some local activists are demanding.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/top-dems-punt-on-defund-the-police-question

    Cowards...

    Take a stand, Top Democrats.. Ya'all have no problem shooting off yer mouths when it comes to President Trump...

    Why so shy now???

  112. [112] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    The autopsy clearly states on its face that the examiner concluded that "restraint and neck compression" and "subdual" [the act of being subdued] by law enforcement were contributing factors in Mr. Floyd's death and concludes the manner of death is a homicide.

    I get that; but had Floyd been having kinky sex when he died (ball-gag, handcuffs, etc.), the ME would also note that it was a “homicide”. Something a person did played a role in the death. It can be intentional or unintentional, but simply being called a “homicide” does not mean that a crime occurred.

    We do not typically charge people for being a “contributing factor” to a person dying of a heart attack... entire families would wind up in prison if we did that!

    Yes, there is video evidence showing Mr. Floyd in no distress whatsoever prior to being handcuffed by Officer Lane (a rookie),

    Are you sure? Floyd had trouble standing up when they first got him out of his vehicle. I am pretty sure I remember at one point he stumbled and the officer helped steady him. The officers believed that Floyd was messed up on drugs — he looked diaphoretic — they could see he was not well and that was what prompted them to call for medics. Remember, the officer took him over and had him sit down on the ground after he was first handcuffed after he seemed unsteady. And Floyd did not look good in that video! I will admit that I assumed he was on drugs based on what his physical appearance presented.

    The term "cardiopulmonary arrest" simply means his heart and breathing stopped, which is quite simply what happens when everyone dies. The autopsy of the Hennepin County Medical Examiner clearly concludes the officers' actions caused Mr. Floyd's death... not to mention the other autopsy.

    No, “cardiopulmonary arrest” is not “simply what happens when everyone dies”! The “cause of death” would always be that if that were true. Strangulations, electrocutions, being mauled to death in a sharknado all result in our heart and breathing stopping.

    And again, the officer’s actions may be “contributing factors”, but that means that they, alone, would not have caused death. You cannot blame the police if Floyd’s diet of fatty foods clogged his arteries were also “contributing factors” in his death.

    I have no idea why Chauvin’s wife filed for divorce when she did...but the timing made me laugh because I would immediately file for divorce if Devon was ever involved in a case that made national headlines like this one... to make sure we both aren’t left bankrupt because of lawsuits. They cannot sue me for what they claim he did that makes them deserve money! Too many police families have gone broke defending against frivolous lawsuits where the evidence clearly showed the officer was not at fault and acted appropriately.

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    96

    Because I take it to an extreme that will never happen?

    Exactly 100% dead on balls accurate. Bless your pea-pickin' heart if you believe there will ever be a day when a candidate will self-limit his political contributions to meet Don Harris's definition of "small donor" (which includes self-limiting funds from his own pocket) when there are already defined limits and the vast majority of Americans contribute zero dollars to political candidates.

    Just like ending slavery, women voting, gay marriage, a black president, etc. would never happen?

    Ridiculous comparisons akin to straw men arguments. There are already defined limitations on an individual's campaign contributions, and inflation isn't likely to drive that number down. If contributing less than $200 to a political campaign could produce the result you claim, then we're already there since the vast majority contribute way less than $200 to political campaigns in the amount of $0.

    One way to make sure something never happens is for people to never find out about it, how it could happen and/or to only be told it can't happen.

    We do know that it's definitely not happening here on this forum, and you have failed massively to adjust for that reality and just keep yammering away as if that will somehow magically change when it won't. That's on you and no one else.

    Get over yourself. You don't have an idea that isn't already in place... rather, you're attempting to lower the amount of political contribution limits to a number more to your liking and threatening not to vote for anyone who doesn't meet your purity test. Your shit isn't democracy; it's blackmail. Voters choose our representatives. Those who'd withhold their vote are allowing others to choose... no more, no less.

    So to recap: For whatever reason, you appear to have failed to meet CW's purity test, and he has refused to endorse you. Isn't that exactly what you're advocating? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

  114. [114] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    100

    Who, us!? *laughs*

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    102

    Not a straw man at all.

    Legitimate examples of things that could never happen happening.

    None of those were things that could never happen, and all of those were straw men.

    It is an amount that the majority of citizens can afford. It can provide enough money to run a campaign.

    Total bollocks. You have no idea what the "majority of citizens can afford," and the vast majority of citizens already are contributing $0.

    I am held to a standard that is not consistent with how others are treated.

    Cry more... although you might recognize it since it is eerily similar to your purity test for political candidates... being held to a standard.

    Somebody did you a great disservice by not explaining to you that life isn't always fair and equal.

    Everything else is well you can only get part of what you want right away and that is okay but One Demand must be perfect from the start and solve all problems right away.

    You want candidates to meet your self-limited purity test, and you're whining incessantly that people are expecting you to be perfect from the start. *laughs*

  116. [116] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don-

    You have a hard sell. You want big money out of politics to be THE problem rather than A problem. You treat it like it's postulated when it really is not.

    CW doesn't seem to take you seriously and it sounds like no one else does either. Persistence may be a virtue but at some point becomes creepy stalking. I think you are way past that point.

    It also does not help that you have developed for yourself an image of being lazy. Your site is pathetically dated in content. The link in your name is broken and has been for years even though a fix is literally: click > enter new data > click. It should not be surprising you are not taken seriously.

    I think reducing big money's influence in politics is one of many worthy problems to be solved, I just don't think One Demand will ever to be the one to do it.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    I get that; but had Floyd been having kinky sex when he died (ball-gag, handcuffs, etc.), the ME would also note that it was a “homicide”. Something a person did played a role in the death. It can be intentional or unintentional, but simply being called a “homicide” does not mean that a crime occurred.

    Yep #1 Generally speaking, an ME (a REAL ME not a paid for "expert") will list a cause of death one of 4 ways..

    Natural
    Suicide
    Homicide
    Accident

    If Floyd had been at home in his bed, the listing would have been "NATURAL"...

    If he had been in a bar fight and got pushed after hitting and keeled over from a heart attack, it would have been listed as HOMICIDE, even though no real crime was committed..

    In this case, Floyd died while resisting arrest.. His cause of death is classified as "HOMICIDE" even though, once again, no crime had been committed..

    We do not typically charge people for being a “contributing factor” to a person dying of a heart attack... entire families would wind up in prison if we did that!

    Yep #2 If a person is arguing with their father and stresses the father out so bad he has a heart attack and died, his death would be listed as a HOMICIDE even though, once again, no crime was committed..

    Are you sure? Floyd had trouble standing up when they first got him out of his vehicle. I am pretty sure I remember at one point he stumbled and the officer helped steady him. The officers believed that Floyd was messed up on drugs — he looked diaphoretic — they could see he was not well and that was what prompted them to call for medics. Remember, the officer took him over and had him sit down on the ground after he was first handcuffed after he seemed unsteady. And Floyd did not look good in that video! I will admit that I assumed he was on drugs based on what his physical appearance presented.

    Yep #3 As I mentioned above, Floyd was in complete control of events.. Right up until the point he chose to fight the cops.. Then the cops were in complete control of the event...

    Like Eric Garner, Floyd died because he chose to fight the law.. Their bodies couldn't handle that choice and they died...

    No, “cardiopulmonary arrest” is not “simply what happens when everyone dies”! The “cause of death” would always be that if that were true. Strangulations, electrocutions, being mauled to death in a sharknado all result in our heart and breathing stopping.

    Yep #4 This is self-evident and requires no explanation..

    And again, the officer’s actions may be “contributing factors”, but that means that they, alone, would not have caused death. You cannot blame the police if Floyd’s diet of fatty foods clogged his arteries were also “contributing factors” in his death.

    Yep.. We are all responsible for our choices we make that affect our health.. Floyd's chose to live and eat in a manner that gave his heart problems.. As I have done.. Floyd chose to ingest meth and fentynal, something I would NEVER do...

    Floyd then chose to fight the cops and resist arrest..

    His choices caught up with him... That's the beginning and the end of Floyd's story...

    I have no idea why Chauvin’s wife filed for divorce when she did...but the timing made me laugh

    It made me shake my head sadly.. Such information is NOTHING but character assassination, pure and simple...

    Probably before your time, but there was this old cop TV show called THE ROOKIES.. Episode dealt with a cop who just had a fight with his wife and took it out on a guy he just pulled over....

    When I read about people trying to make Officer Chauvin's divorce relevant, I thought of that episode...

    When all is said and done, Officer Chauvin did nothing wrong... Floyd's death was due to his own choices...

    Nothing more...

    I know, I know..

    "Stuart.. Don't agree with me.. It just makes me doubt myself.."
    -Michael J Fox, SPIN CITY

    :D

  118. [118] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Even if the ME could determine that the police restraining Floyd was the sole factor in him going into cardiopulmonary arrest — that they caused his death — that does not mean that they did anything that violated the law. Mr. Floyd caused them to have to physically restrain him when he refused to comply when he was told that he was under arrest. They did not use holds on him that are inherently dangerous; just the opposite! As long as they were following their departments guidelines for how to physically force compliance when a person resists arrest, they cannot be held legally responsible for Floyd’s death. Mr. Floyd’s death was tragic, but the police did not do anything that hundreds of other officers do every single day without it resulting in death. Again, this is a case that makes anyone who watches Mr. Floyd die the way he did desire to see someone punished! I get that and felt that way, too. But even if Chauvin took his knee away from Floyd’s neck once he appeared to be unconscious...there is no reason to believe the outcome would have been different,..and as I am typing this I recognize what a heartless piece of scum that saying this must make me sound like — that does not make it any less true.

    The knee to the neck maneuver does not cause the heart to stop beating. It does not trigger cardiopulmonary arrest. If anything, you might expect that the knee to the neck move was a major factor had asphyxiation been the cause of death.

    Again, I fear that the prosecution wanted to appease the masses in an attempt to lessen the furor the video causes most to feel, but are we better off giving in to mob wishes and charging officers prior to allowing investigations to be concluded?

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mentioned above how George Floyd is being judged for the color of his skin and not the content of his character..

    Let's take a look at that character, shall we???

    1998 10 months in prison.
    Armed Robbery

    2002 8 months in prison.
    Cocaine

    2004 10 months in prison.
    Cocaine

    2005 10 months in prison.
    Cocaine

    2007 5 years in prison.
    Armed Robbery.
    Home Invasion.
    A pregnant woman in her home.

    This is not irrelevant information..

    This is all relevant FACTS...

    There are many MANY more examples of Floyd's criminal record...

    Let's judge Floyd for the content of his character.. Not the color of his skin..

    Shall we???

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, I fear that the prosecution wanted to appease the masses in an attempt to lessen the furor the video causes most to feel, but are we better off giving in to mob wishes and charging officers prior to allowing investigations to be concluded?

    DING, DING, DING!! We have a winner!!!

    If Floyd had been white, none of us would be having this conversation..

    This is simply a political issue, pure and simple..

    The FACTS allow for no other possible conclusion...

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://sjfm.us/pics/TylerTexas.jpg

    Tell it like it is, sir!!

    Just the FACTS...

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    104

    My point was that we know his cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest, so demonstrating how the officer’s actions were solely responsible for causing him to die is not going to be easy.

    They don't have to prove the officer's actions were "solely responsible" for causing Mr. Floyd to die. As I already stated in an earlier post, even if Mr. Floyd was UTI and had health conditions that may have been a contributing factor in his death, it does not appear he would have been killed were it not for Chauvin's pinning him down after he had already been restrained and rear-cuffed. The Medical Examiner has already listed the officers' actions as a contributory cause of his homicide. If a judge or jury finds that Mr. Floyd would be alive but for the defendant officer's actions, then that officer could be convicted in his death... if you can get 12 jurors to agree on anything "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not easy and dang near impossible when you're dealing with police officers and 12 jurors.

    There actually was a conviction in Minnesota of a police officer killing a civilian so it is possible. It was a case of a black officer killing a white woman, of course.

    Under Minnesota law, unintentional second-degree murder involves causing "the death of a human being, without intent while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense." Not easy to prove since prosecutors are alleging that Chauvin killed Floyd while committing felony assault on Floyd.

    For third-degree murder, prosecutors must demonstrate Chauvin caused Floyd's death by actions "eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." Depraved mind is a high hurdle.

    To prove second-degree manslaughter in Minnesota, there are five avenues of which only one need be proven:

    609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

    A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

    (1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

    The other four aren't relevant to the instant case.

    The charging strategy is obviously to give jurors a cornucopia of choice and boosts the chances of a conviction on at least one charge. Flipping the three officers against the one allows the jury to easily take the side of the police officers, which juries inevitably do. This is a case of "excessive force." Was an unarmed, rear-cuffed Floyd a threat to four officers? The reasonableness of an officer's use of force is judged "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight"... so says the SCOTUS.

    I would not wish to be Chauvin's attorney attempting to argue my client felt threatened by a rear-cuffed Floyd who was unarmed with his face pressed into the pavement and hovered over by three other officers. A guy with his hands slipping calmly in and out of his own pockets is not the picture of an officer who feels threatened. Their basic argument will be that Floyd died from a "heart attack," but "cardiopulmonary arrest" by being restrained and having your neck compressed by law enforcement and a heart attack are two entirely different things. They could argue fentanyl intoxication and/or recent meth use, but then that issue is basically moot since the autopsy doesn't list either of those factors as contributing to his death, does it?

    Prosecutors will obviously argue that the cause of Floyd's death was the contributing action of the officer(s) because that's what the autopsy actually says and explains it was neck compression and restraint by the officers.

    Officer Thou is not likely going to get convicted since he was performing crowd control, and his mere presence at the scene does not constitute aiding and abetting the restraint and neck compression that the Medical Examiner lists as contributory in Floyd's death. If Thou is guilty, then so is every other person on the scene that didn't stop Chauvin's use of excessive force of an unarmed Mr. Floyd who was rear-cuffed and outnumbered by a factor of at least three to one since Thou was not standing over Floyd but rather controlling the bystanders.

    Attorneys for Kueng and Lane will simply argue they were following orders... because Lane was an officer in training who asked Chauvin multiple times if they should do something for Floyd, and I have heard Lane was on the force for four days. Chauvin was the training officer who refused Rookie Lane's requests on multiple occasions.

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    That whole "no one but her husband to blame for James Comey having anything to do with the outcome of the 2016 election" isn't a "fact," and I would not characterize your regular mentioning of it as "rarely" because every time you do it, I think to myself how ridiculous it is to continue to single out Bill Clinton for many of Director Comey's decisions.

    Let me try explaining it one more time - for the integrity of the record, you know.

    If it wasn't for candidate Hillary's husband and whatever it was that he was up to on the tarmac in Phoenix, then Comey would NOT have been the one giving a press conference on July 5th, or there abouts, he would not have been the one testifying before Congress and promising the committee - don't remember which committee it was but, that's not pertinent - that he would let them know if any "new evidence" became known.

    All of that would have fallen to the AG (that would be Loretta Lynch, associate of the Clintons, did you know) because she would have been the one who told the media and public that no charges would be laid in this "matter", NOT Comey.

    So, to recap (HEH), oh forget about it. :)

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    112

    I get that; but had Floyd been having kinky sex when he died (ball-gag, handcuffs, etc.), the ME would also note that it was a “homicide”.

    You appear to have missed my point and to have thrown up somewhat of a straw man, but okay.

    Something a person did played a role in the death.

    Applies to "suicide" as well and not just "homicide," you know that.

    It can be intentional or unintentional, but simply being called a “homicide” does not mean that a crime occurred.

    Again, you missed my point and it's more than a little irksome that you're mansplaining the obvious.

    We do not typically charge people for being a “contributing factor” to a person dying of a heart attack... entire families would wind up in prison if we did that!

    You've now jumped from the autopsy I was discussing to the charge, and who is this "we"? Yes, I'm well aware that a Medical Examiner doesn't list the cause of death of a heart attack as "suicide by man who couldn't restrain himself from overeating sugar/animal products." Duh! Y'all keep insisting this was a "heart attack." That's not what the Medical Examiner concluded, and... again... the Prosecutor doesn't have to prove the officer was the sole cause of Mr. Floyd's death... just that his actions contributed to his immediate death... of which there is no question.

    Are you sure? Floyd had trouble standing up when they first got him out of his vehicle. I am pretty sure I remember at one point he stumbled and the officer helped steady him. The officers believed that Floyd was messed up on drugs — he looked diaphoretic — they could see he was not well and that was what prompted them to call for medics. Remember, the officer took him over and had him sit down on the ground after he was first handcuffed after he seemed unsteady. And Floyd did not look good in that video! I will admit that I assumed he was on drugs based on what his physical appearance presented.

    Yes, I obviously know all this.

    No, “cardiopulmonary arrest” is not “simply what happens when everyone dies”!

    You either twisted or misunderstood my words. No problem.

    The “cause of death” would always be that if that were true.

    Wrong, but you are definitely successfully skirting all around the fact that the Medical Examiner lists the cause of Floyd's death as his heart and pulmonary functioning ceasing because law enforcement subdued him and restrained him and compressed his neck. That was the cause of death. You seem intent on ignoring the causative factor of the heart and pulmonary distress listed on the autopsy as being some kind of naturally occurring event that the officers had nothing to do with when the autopsy clearly states they did. Layman's terms: What you're claiming is like saying that an arsonist who started a fire in the back bedroom couldn't have burned the house down since there was a fire lit in the living room fireplace.

    Strangulations, electrocutions, being mauled to death in a sharknado all result in our heart and breathing stopping.

    Mansplaining to the choir. I'm used to it.

    And again, the officer’s actions may be “contributing factors”, but that means that they, alone, would not have caused death.

    Wrong. It simply means the Medical Examiner has concluded that being restrained and having his neck compressed did contribute to his death. The prosecution doesn't have to prove that Chauvin's actions alone wouldn't have killed Mr. Floyd because the autopsy states unequivocally that restraint by law enforcement and neck compression caused his death.

    If they had fatally shot him in the head, would we blame the bullet for causing "cardiopulmonary arrest"? Do you not understand having your torso pressed down into the pavement causes your diaphragm to be immobile and having your neck compressed simultaneously limits the ability to breathe? You seem to be claiming Mr. Floyd had a coincidental heart attack, and that is not what the autopsy says... not by a long stretch.

    You cannot blame the police if Floyd’s diet of fatty foods clogged his arteries were also “contributing factors” in his death.

    I don't have to blame the police for causing Floyd's death since the autopsy has done that for me. See above.

    I have no idea why Chauvin’s wife filed for divorce when she did...but the timing made me laugh because I would immediately file for divorce if Devon was ever involved in a case that made national headlines like this one... to make sure we both aren’t left bankrupt because of lawsuits.

    I thought of that too.

    They cannot sue me for what they claim he did that makes them deserve money!

    You're describing a scenario that could be considered "conversion" in most jurisdictions. It wouldn't save your joint belongings.

  125. [125] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Big money in politics is THE problem.

    It is literaly the main reason every other issue can not be solved inlcuding but not limited to the War on Habitat and income inequality.

    Just because someone may not take me seriously doesn't mean that it is not serious.

    No one took any of the things previously mentioned seriously either.

    The website needs updating nonsense AGAIN?

    The information is still relevant. You are just grasping for straws to avoid the issues. Pitiful.

    What link are you talking about?

    When I put One Demand into the search it comes right up.

    You do not know if CW takes One Demand seriously because CW has not explained why he will not address One Demand.

    I could just as easily make the claim that CW does take it seriously and does not address it because he can't make a valid argument against it, as everyone here has failed to do.

    Gosh. Life isn't always fair and equal.

    So people that are not treated fairly and equal should just accept it and not complain or try to do anything about it.

    Did you hear that black people? Life isn't fair so just accept that you will be abused by some police and society in general.

  126. [126] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Asstroll.

  127. [127] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    Sorry, the life not fair was Kick.

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    117

    Generally speaking, an ME (a REAL ME not a paid for "expert") will list a cause of death one of 4 ways..

    Natural
    Suicide
    Homicide
    Accident

    Wrong... and once again, your obvious dearth of the "expertise" you frequently claim has reared it ugly head and screamed loudly. You omitted "undetermined" and "pending." Only a medical examiner or a coroner may use all of the aforementioned manners of death, and any other "certifier" has to list the manner of death as "natural" or refer the death to a medical examiner/coroner.

    Dr. Michael Baden is a coroner and not just a "paid for expert" like you keep claiming he is. Also, if you've read both autopsies, which you clearly have not, you will discover that they are not so different.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/

    In this case, Floyd died while resisting arrest.. His cause of death is classified as "HOMICIDE" even though, once again, no crime had been committed..

    Not your call, Mike.

    Yep #2 If a person is arguing with their father and stresses the father out so bad he has a heart attack and died, his death would be listed as a HOMICIDE even though, once again, no crime was committed..

    Thank you for that proof of your ignorance. If you seriously believe a heart attack caused by angry words would be classified as a "homicide" by a Medical Examiner, then you're dumber than I thought.

    When I read about people trying to make Officer Chauvin's divorce relevant, I thought of that episode...

    Never said it was relevant to Floyd's death or even relevant to the case... just mentioned it. Yet here you are insisting the substances in his body were causative factors in Floyd's death, and the autopsy most assuredly does not mention them as a causative factor. Duh.

    When all is said and done, Officer Chauvin did nothing wrong... Floyd's death was due to his own choices...

    That's clearly is not what either of the autopsies list as the cause of death.

    continued...

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    ... continued

    Anyone want to get educated about the Floyd case, then start here:

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/george-floyds-autopsy-and-the-structural-gaslighting-of-america/

    And read both autopsies. They're not that different. The officers have been determined to have caused Mr. Floyd's death by restraining him and compressing his neck on both reports. One of them is simply more specific.

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    That is why CW should put it in an article.

    No, no, NO!

    Here is what I think could happen. Perhaps, CW might consider giving you the opportunity to be a quest author so that YOU can write the article or get someone else to do it (NOT CW, though).

    This should be a one time offer for you, one time only. Unless, of course, the response you get in these comments sections is cogent and sustained and in support of your idea. In which case, the opportunity may arise again for another guest article.

    Now, having said that, I don't believe you have accumulated any positive capital with Chris so convincing him to let you guest author (a process which, by the way, should not take place here, in the comments sections but, rather through email exchanges with Chris) may require extreme effort on your part. Nothing worth doing is ever easy, as they say …

    One more piece of free advice … you need to find a better way of convincing/persuading people why your basic idea of getting big money out of politics is a sound one. However, I think you will have to go beyond your One Demand idea. Frankly, I would scrap it altogether and develop a better strategy with new tactics. Otherwise, I don't see any point in having you guest author a simple rehash of what you have been saying here in the comments sections of Chris's blog.

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    119

    This is not irrelevant information..

    Every bit of this shit is irrelevant to his death or the case against law enforcement cited as a cause of his death in two autopsies. That shit would definitely be relevant in the sentencing phase of a trial of Mr. Floyd were he to be found guilty of a crime in a court of law. He's deceased so it's not relevant.

    This is all relevant FACTS...

    Nope.

    There are many MANY more examples of Floyd's criminal record...

    Pull Chauvin's records, it's the only thing relevant in the criminal case against him.

    Let's judge Floyd for the content of his character.. Not the color of his skin..

    No reason to judge Floyd unless you're looking for a reason to smear him to fit your political narrative... which you obviously are doing exactly that.

  132. [132] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Mansplaining to the choir. I'm used to it.

    Me, too. I hate when that happens. Mostly because it means that misguided assumptions are being made.

    Do ya see what I mean, Russ? :)

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    123

    I read your post, and I obviously understand where you're coming from. But none of that which you've listed removes Comey as the Director of the FBI who was quite obviously able to make decisions that weren't limited to the influence of other persons who weren't named Bill Clinton.

    The "she has only her husband to blame" part is where you lose me since Comey had other influences beyond Bill Clinton, and he was definitely calling the shots whether or not the incident on the tarmac had ever happened.

    So, to recap (HEH) <--- I hear you: You're suggesting repeatedly that Comey wouldn't have made any decisions that could have affected the outcome of the 2016 election but for the actions of Bill Clinton, and that's a bridge too far because he was the Director of the FBI who made decisions in the Clinton case not related to the influence of Hillary's husband but definitely related to the influence of others. That's all I'm saying. :)

  134. [134] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, he was the FBI Director, but few people would have known that (I'm not talking to you!) if he hadn't been made such a public participant.

    And, remember, the FBI Director is not in the position of deciding whether charges should be laid in the Clinton email saga - that role was to be the sole responsibility of AG Lynch, taking into account the director's private recommendations.

    Because of Bills actions, Comey was catapulted into public view AND put in the position of having to make decisions that would have otherwise been made by the AG.

    I'm going to leave it there because I think we understand each other.

    New (depressing) column up!

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Did I get my point across that "cardiopulmonary arrest" is not a heart attack (myocardial infarction)?

    "Cardiopulmonary arrest" indicates that Floyd stopped breathing and his heart stopped beating, and the Hennepin County medical examiner explains that it was caused by Mr. Floyd's restraint in the custody of law enforcement officers and from neck compression.

    That is what the autopsy says, and I keep seeing people equating "cardiopulmonary arrest" with "myocardial infarction." I cannot fathom why people are doing that, but I wish they would stop doing that. Please. :)

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    110

    That was not in the official autopsy..

    Yes, that was quoted from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's autopsy and not that complicated a cause of death. I cannot help you if you're effing illiterate.

    That was in the autopsy that the family bought and paid for..

    Get some glasses or a good education. That'll decrease the frequency of your utter asinine bullshit claims that you refer to as "facts."

  137. [137] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    Please read what Elizabeth Miller has to say at [130] because she is dead on balls accurate.

    Also, you and your whining and crying incessantly that you're somehow being held to a higher standard is comedy at its hypocritical finest... "Mr. Purity Test" himself complaining about being on the receiving end of the equivalent of your own self-described "idea"... hilarious. :)

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    134

    Yes, he was the FBI Director, but few people would have known that (I'm not talking to you!) if he hadn't been made such a public participant.

    I see what you're saying... that Lynch deferred to Comey because of the meeting on the tarmac.

    And, remember, the FBI Director is not in the position of deciding whether charges should be laid in the Clinton email saga - that role was to be the sole responsibility of AG Lynch, taking into account the director's private recommendations.

    Which "private recommendations" are definitely influenced by multiple career personnel who report their findings to him (of which Bill Clinton is not one). Do you see where I'm coming from? Comey's decision was being influenced by multiple career investigators assigned to the investigation, and not a single one of them was Bill Clinton.

    Because of Bills actions, Comey was catapulted into public view AND put in the position of having to make decisions that would have otherwise been made by the AG.

    Comey with the help of other FBI agents not named Bill Clinton would have been responsible for drawing those conclusions regardless and then reporting them to AG Lynch whether or not the tarmac incident had taken place.

    Comey being the mouthpiece rather than just the "middle man" who passed on his decisions to AG Lynch wouldn't preclude the influence of others who weren't Bill Clinton on the decisions he made.

    I'm going to leave it there because I think we understand each other.

    You just keep losing me at "no one but her husband to blame" when Comey definitely made decisions based on input from multiple other persons not named Bill Clinton that definitely had an effect on the outcome of the 2016 election, and whether or not Lynch made the announcement of those decisions and how much she chose to share with the public, her announcement would have still been predicated on decisions made by Comey and the investigators assigned to the HRC email investigation. I'm not just referring to the things Comey said but also things he chose to leave unsaid that had nothing whatsoever to do with "her husband" yet definitely contributed to the outcome of the 2016 election.

    New (depressing) column up!

    Only if we allow the itty bitty words to depress us. Don't do it, EM! You're way too smart for that. :)

  139. [139] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Lynch, for all intents and purposes, recused herself when the news about the meeting with Bill was reported. That meeting happened just days before Hillary was to be interviewed by the FBI and the AG was already known to be a close Clinton associate.

    Comey was making decisions because Lynch 'recused' herself from making those decisions.

    No tarmac meeting - no Comey decisions that put him in the spotlight.

    Just replace Comey's name from all the Clinton email news from 2016 and replace it with Lynch if that meeting with Bill doesn't take place.

    That meeting changed EVERYTHING with respect to Comey and his role in the decision-making process. It was also the reason Comey went into such detail about why charges would not be laid and why he didn't even tell the AG what he was going to say in that infamous and unprecedented 'no charges' presser.

    Comey is blamed for a lot by a lot of misguided people who should be directing their ire squarely on Bill Clinton as his decision to board the AG's plane for 30 minutes days before his wife was to be interview by the FBI put into motion Comey's involvement.

  140. [140] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not that Lynch would have made the same decisions or handled the email investigation and conclusion the same way that Comey did - but, the point is that SHE would have been the one making those decisions and announcing the FBI conclusions (or not? - good luck with that, though, given the circumstances).

  141. [141] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    She would also have the one testifying before Congress about all of it, NOT Comey.

    The thing is, as bad as Bill's meeting ended up being for his wife, it might even have been worse if it was AG Lynch handling it all instead of the FBI Director. Who knows, just something to ponder, when there is nothing else to do.

  142. [142] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM

    Comey was making decisions because Lynch 'recused' herself from making those decisions.

    So you think the Director of the FBI and his career prosecutors who had been working on that case for months with no help from Lynch whatsoever had actually made no decisions over the course of the investigation? Incorrect.

    If you cannot grasp the concept that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as the career prosecutors working under his direction on the Clinton issue made multiple decisions before and after Comey's announcement to the public regarding their findings that had nothing whatsoever to do with Bill Clinton that could have affected the outcome of the 2016 election, then I cannot help you.

    Lynch had already decided to defer to the decisions of the FBI and the career prosecutors who made several decisions before Bill Clinton ever stepped foot on Lynch's plane. Comey being the mouthpiece announcing those decisions based on months of investigation didn't change the decisions already made.

    After the meeting on the tarmac, Lynch said that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the FBI director made about whether or not to bring charges in the case. Not rocket science, EM.

    Comey was making decisions because Lynch 'recused' herself from making those decisions.

    Comey and the career prosecutors had already made multiple decisions during the course of the investigation without the help of Lynch. They made decisions after the announcement too that had nothing whatsoever to do with Lynch.

    No tarmac meeting - no Comey decisions that put him in the spotlight.

    "That put him in the spotlight"? So you think Comey made no decisions behind the scenes outside the glare of "the spotlight" that could have had an effect on the 2016 election. *facepalm*

    Just replace Comey's name from all the Clinton email news from 2016 and replace it with Lynch if that meeting with Bill doesn't take place.

    It doesn't change the outcome of their findings in any way or their decisions before the plane meeting or any of their decisions to reopen the case in late October... just changes the person delivering the findings.

    That meeting changed EVERYTHING with respect to Comey and his role in the decision-making process.

    No, it did not. The Director of the FBI's decisions and the findings of his career prosecutors both before the meeting on the tarmac and after it didn't change just because of a meeting at a Phoenix runway. Comey's decision to reopen the case and announce that he'd reopened the case had nothing to do with Bill Clinton either. There were other factors besides Bill Clinton that influenced their decisions long before and long after the meeting on the tarmac.

    It was also the reason Comey went into such detail about why charges would not be laid and why he didn't even tell the AG what he was going to say in that infamous and unprecedented 'no charges' presser.

    I will give you that one, but it still doesn't change the fact that Bill Clinton alone didn't drive all the decisions. The decisions made by Comey and his career prosecutors didn't begin or reset/restart or end when Bill Clinton stepped foot on Lynch's plane.

    Comey is blamed for a lot by a lot of misguided people who should be directing their ire squarely on Bill Clinton as his decision to board the AG's plane for 30 minutes days before his wife was to be interview by the FBI put into motion Comey's involvement.

    Oh, I think we've finally hit on our impasse regarding this issue. It appears you're assuming that I'm blaming Director Comey for the decisions he made... when nothing could be further from the truth. I'm just telling you that Bill Clinton wasn't the only person that influenced the actions of the Director of the FBI. Full stop.

    So to recap: I don't fault Comey at all, but neither do I blame Bill Clinton alone for the decisions that Director Comey and his career prosecutors made before and after Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch because there were a plethora of other actors that were not the candidate's spouse that were involved.

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I give up.

  144. [144] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Cardiopulmonary arrest is when the heart stops beating and stops pumping blood throughout the body. It is a condition that requires immediate medical care or death occurs within minutes.

    In the majority of cases, the killer condition is caused by an abnormal heart rhythm called ventricular fibrillation.

    VF is an electrical fault, where the electrical activity of the heart gets so chaotic the heart stops pumping suddenly, and quivers instead.

    VF can be caused by:

    coronary heart disease
    heart attack
    cardiomyopathy
    congenital heart disease
    heart valve disease
    acute myocarditis

    Wrong. It simply means the Medical Examiner has concluded that being restrained and having his neck compressed did contribute to his death. The prosecution doesn't have to prove that Chauvin's actions alone wouldn't have killed Mr. Floyd because the autopsy states unequivocally that restraint by law enforcement and neck compression caused his death.

    You are saying two very different things in these two sentences. I agree with the first one that the police having to restrain Floyd did contribute to his death. Your second sentence is wrong. The autopsy lists cause of death as:

    Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression

    Cardiopulmonary arrest is still what killed Floyd. (I apologize if my previous posts used the term “heartattack”, my autocorrect was changing it to that when I was attempting to use “heartarrest” . I know they are separate words, but I have gotten lazy and let autocorrect separate them for me and it switched words on me as well.)

    If they had fatally shot him in the head, would we blame the bullet for causing "cardiopulmonary arrest"? Do you not understand having your torso pressed down into the pavement causes your diaphragm to be immobile and having your neck compressed simultaneously limits the ability to breathe?

    I understand that very well. And I also understand that limiting your ability to breathe is called “asphyxiation” when it kills you. I am also aware that difficulty breathing is not a cause of cardiopulmonary arrest... it is a symptom of it.

    You seem to be claiming Mr. Floyd had a coincidental heart attack, and that is not what the autopsy says... not by a long stretch.

    He appeared to be in the early stages of cardiopulmonary arrest when the police first encountered him...which the police mistook for just being on a bad drug trip. Struggling with police would definitely be a complication in his going into arrest, but nothing they did would have caused him to experience cardiopulmonary arrest. The officers were using techniques that police all over the world are taught to use because they are non-lethal ways to restrain non compliant individuals.

    You cannot hold the officer’s responsible for his death when they were acting in the line of duty as their training dictated. They weren’t using excessive force — while I would have sat Floyd up once he was secured, if Chauvin explains why he felt Floyd needed to be kept from being able to have a wider range of movement and it is deemed “rational”, then it does not meet the legal definition for “excessive”.

    I apologize if anything I am saying comes off as snarky... please know that is not my intention at all. Honestly, I’ve probably rewritten every sentence of this post at least twice trying to make sure I am correctly saying what I hope to convey.

    Being at the bottom of a rugby scrum may trigger my going into cardiopulmonary arrest, but it is not what causes cardiopulmonary arrest, itself. Does that make sense?

  145. [145] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It really is painful to see you twisting yourself into a bad kind of pretzel over this, Russ.

    No, your asinine analysis makes no sense, whatsoever. And, any cop worth his or her own salt can see it for precisely what it is, I am sorry to say.

  146. [146] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    (I apologize if my previous posts used the term “heartattack”, my autocorrect was changing it to that when I was attempting to use “heartarrest” . I know they are separate words, but I have gotten lazy and let autocorrect separate them for me and it switched words on me as well.)

    Un-freakin-believable, autocorrect or no autocorrect.

    , practically out of my frakking head.

  147. [147] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    (I apologize if my previous posts used the term “heartattack”, my autocorrect was changing it to that when I was attempting to use “heartarrest” . I know they are separate words, but I have gotten lazy and let autocorrect separate them for me and it switched words on me as well.)

    Un-freakin-believable, autocorrect or no autocorrect.

    Roll eyes - practically out of my frakking head.

    Stop this craziness!

  148. [148] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz [145 - 147]

    I am sorry, I thought I had properly addressed that post to Kick, but alas, I was wrong! Ever been wrong? I have.

    Feel free to not read my posts if they upset you this much...if I have something intended for you to read I will make sure to address it to you. Otherwise, you can go and French kiss a light socket!

    I was having what I considered to be a lovely, and often spirited, conversation with Kick. We might not agree with everything the other says, but did ya notice how neither one freaked out demanding that the other shut their mouths and keep their opinions to themselves?

    For someone who is always complaining how you long for the days gone by where people never raised their voices or became angry because of what others posted — this seems to clarify that you do not have a problem with anyone else’s opinion... as long as it does not conflict with your own.

  149. [149] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    144

    I apologize if anything I am saying comes off as snarky... please know that is not my intention at all. Honestly, I’ve probably rewritten every sentence of this post at least twice trying to make sure I am correctly saying what I hope to convey.

    No worries, Russ. When I was reading your quotes of what I had written, I was thinking I sounded snarky too, but of course that wasn't my intention at all... it's just "talking" when converted to print doesn't convey tone and just sits there sometimes "sounding" different than it was intended. You and me are like peas so we understand each other, I think.

    So, I did read your responses, and I hear you. I also think I know where you're coming from on this issue, and this is just one of those we disagree on. I'm reading the autopsy as definitively stating the officer(s) caused his death by restraining him and compressing his neck... basically depriving oxygen to his heart and lungs and causing them to go into arrest and causing his death... ... you, not so much. I can't exactly put my finger on what you're saying... yet. I think you believe the officers were a factor in causing his death, and I definitely believe they outright caused his death and he'd still be alive if but for actions of the officers that deprived him oxygen.

    Being at the bottom of a rugby scrum may trigger my going into cardiopulmonary arrest, but it is not what causes cardiopulmonary arrest, itself. Does that make sense?

    No! But...

    I still love you. :)

  150. [150] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    145|146|147

    Language!

    Just kidding. :)

  151. [151] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    148

    I honestly believe EM was teasing you... but definitely mixed in there is some exasperation at her trying to understand your conclusion that the officers were a factor in the cause of Mr. Floyd's death but without actually causing his death.

    I've never encountered a "bad kind of pretzel," myself, but I have had occasion to remove an excessive amount of salt from more than a few of them. :)

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Language to fit the circumstance, you know.

  153. [153] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Give me a freakin' break, Russ - we've both been here too long.

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Besides, if I didn't care so much I wouldn't get so upset, for God's sake ...

  155. [155] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    154

    Besides, if I didn't care so much I wouldn't get so upset, for God's sake ...

    ^^^ This! ^^^

  156. [156] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    I'm reading the autopsy as definitively stating the officer(s) caused his death by restraining him and compressing his neck... basically depriving oxygen to his heart and lungs and causing them to go into arrest and causing his death... ... you, not so much. I can't exactly put my finger on what you're saying... yet. I think you believe the officers were a factor in causing his death, and I definitely believe they outright caused his death and he'd still be alive if but for actions of the officers that deprived him oxygen.

    You believe the officer’s actions restricted his breathing and caused him to go into cardiopulmonary arrest. I have yet to find a medical site that lists having trouble breathing as something that causes cardiopulmonary arrest to occur; but every one of them say that someone in arrest will likely have difficulty breathing or that they may stop breathing entirely.

    If Mr. Floyd had not resisted, you believe he would still be alive today. I am not so sure, but either way I do not think the officer’s actions were criminal. They did what they were trained to do in that scenario. If they performed those same maneuvers on 100 different people, I am confident that none of those 100 people should go into cardiopulmonary arrest...why? Because that happens every day with police all over the world and we do not have large numbers dying daily.

  157. [157] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They did what they were trained to do in that scenario. If they performed those same maneuvers on 100 different people, I am confident that none of those 100 people should go into cardiopulmonary arrest...why? Because that happens every day with police all over the world and we do not have large numbers dying daily.

    So, Floyd would have died outside that store in the street or somewhere else that day if a store employee hadn't called the police to report a counterfeit 20 dollar bill?

    What kind of sense does that make?

    Should you have anybody dying in the circumstances in which Floyd died?

    Should police do a better job when it comes to keeping people in their custody alive?

    Sometimes, having blinders on can prevent people from seeing what is before their very eyes.

    This may be one of those rare cases when people are blinded to reality by thick experience.

    And, I'm not talking to anyone, in particular - just thinking out loud as I am so wont to do here. Ahem.

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If the police involved in Floyd's death had just simply removed a knee and sat him up and calmed the situation down, he would very probably be alive ( or, at least, not dead due to police action) today and the police involved would not be under arrest, for this crime, anyway.

    But, then again, I don't think Floyd died in vain. I think change is coming - I just hope it is positive change for all of us.

  159. [159] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, Floyd would have died outside that store in the street or somewhere else that day if a store employee hadn't called the police to report a counterfeit 20 dollar bill?

    It is a possibility. The officers believed he was on drugs; he was diaphoretic, he had trouble standing and needed the officer to keep him steady at the very start of him being asked to exit his vehicle. Were those the early signs that he was in the first stages of a medical emergency?

    Should you have anybody dying in the circumstances in which Floyd died?

    NO! You should not...which is the point I have been trying to make this whole time! The officers used only non-lethal maneuvers that they use all the time without incident; yet Floyd died?!? If they weren’t doing anything different than how they typically restrain subjects that resist arrest, but the outcome is different, what is the factor that changed from all of the previous times — George Floyd. Mr. Floyd’s health problems are the one wildcard that the officer’s have no control over. Healthy people do not just go into cardiopulmonary arrest! Mr. Floyd chose to have the officer’s restrain him. That was not their choice.

    Should police do a better job when it comes to keeping people in their custody alive?

    They should be doing everything in their power to keep people in their custody alive...and that is why they called for medics early upon meeting Mr. Floyd. When Floyd chose to resist, he caused the police’s first priority to be securing a subject that is willing to use violence to avoid arrest. I realize how horrific it is to hear him begging them to let him up because he cannot breathe...but that is something they hear from everyone who resists and realizes that they made a big mistake by being combative.

    Calls of, “You are killing me,” and “You are hurting me,” are ignored because the officers know that they are using non-lethal holds that do not block airways or cut off blood flow. The person being prevented from continuing to fight the officer’s takes precedence over that person’s comfort.

    Sometimes, having blinders on can prevent people from seeing what is before their very eyes.

    This may be one of those rare cases when people are blinded to reality by thick experience.

    I completely agree. I would point out that I am simply providing a different perspective for this events. I have not said that your opinion is wrong — in fact, I agree that the officer’s actions were a contributing factor in Floyd’s death. I am providing you with the reason behind the officer’s actions, minus the emotions.

    You are the one completely dismissing my opinion, without providing any evidence to contradict or dismiss what I am offering. Blinders are worn by those whose views are restricted...

    It is easy to quarterback these events after the fact. It is much harder to put yourself in another’s shoes that you view negatively.

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, Russ, answer me this:

    Why did the officer keep his knee on Floyd's neck for almost nine minutes and wouldn't even remove it after the medics arrived until one of the medics had to kneel down with him to tell him to take his knee off?

    I am willing to stipulate that putting a knee on the neck is a non-lethal form of subduing someone in police custody. I am also willing to agree with you when you say that this form of restraint is used all the time and few die as a result. Let's say even no one in custody dies as a result of this type of restraint.

    What I have been trying to say is that police should be competent enough to know that not all circumstances are the same and that they need to be aware that extreme care is to be taken when using this form of restraint because it could lead to the death of the person they are trying to restrain. If police don't accept this premise, then don't be surprised if their restraining behavior is regulated to the point where they will no longer be allowed to touch a person's neck, let alone put their knee on it for nine minutes while the person is on the ground, on their stomach and with their hands handcuffed behind their back!

    The circumstances in this case that are pertinent to all four officers and their involvement in Floyd's death are as follows:

    BEFORE the officer put his knee on Floyd's neck, Floyd was on the ground, on his stomach with his hands handcuffed behind his back. (Think about that for a minute)

    While Floyd was on the ground, on his stomach with his hands handcuffed behind his back, the officer put his knee on his neck and didn't take it off until the medic arrived and told him to take it off, almost nine minutes later. By that time, Floyd was dead, underlying health issues or no underlying health issues.

    This is far from competent policing. In fact, I'll bet there are thousands of police forces around the US that are now showing this video to all of its members in order to learn how NOT to act when restraining someone who is in their custody. I didn't touch on many of the failures of those officers that day in my posts here but, I imagine there is ample evidence for great learning by police, wherever they work.

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It is easy to quarterback these events after the fact. It is much harder to put yourself in another’s shoes that you view negatively.

    Actually, despite all of my comments here on the subject, I think I could be a very good juror on this case. Because, I have a completely open mind about what the police involved in this affair have to say and how their attorneys develop the case within the confines of a trial.

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    156

    I hear you... and one thing is for certain regarding this issue is we're definitely going to have to hear more testimony and learn more about the facts of this case at trial.

    I think we do agree that none of the officers are likely to be convicted of murder in a court of law where 12 jurors have to agree on anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- a unanimous verdict over a very high bar to prove. The only way Chauvin gets convicted is if two or more of the other three officers testify against him, and I cannot fathom how Chauvin would be convicted of anything he's been charged... with the possible exception of the Manslaughter charge but only if the other officers testify against him.

  163. [163] 
    Kick wrote:

    I agree with EM on this one... practically every single word too. Floyd's life was expunged by the actions of the officers. Officer Lane -- a rookie -- tried multiple times to get Chauvin -- a training officer -- to ease off, but he refused... for just shy of 9 minutes. Nine minutes! And of those 9 minutes, almost 3 of those minutes were after Mr. Floyd was stone cold still and a threat to no one.

  164. [164] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Why did the officer keep his knee on Floyd's neck for almost nine minutes and wouldn't even remove it after the medics arrived until one of the medics had to kneel down with him to tell him to take his knee off?

    Great question...and I do not know why Chauvin chose to keep his knee on the neck all 9 minutes...but I can explain why this hold is used and offer what police view as valid reasons to keep the knee where it was.

    Why did Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s neck after the officer’s finally got him restrained on the ground? Because the knee to the neck requires far less force being applied to control movement than the force required by officers positioned anywhere else on Floyd’s body! They did not need four officer to hold him down once Chauvin positioned himself on the neck. If you control the head, you control the body’s movements...it is a simple concept, but incredibly important to understand why this hold that seems so demeaning to many people is such a necessity for keeping people safe.

    And Chauvin should not have been (nor does he appear to be in photos) putting pressure down on Floyd’s neck except when Floyd would try to lift his head up. The knee rests on the neck and it only takes a very small amount of pressure to keep even the biggest/strongest person from being able to move. This is most likely the reason why Chauvin refused to let his knee off of Floyd’s neck — because it was not putting any real pressure on Floyd. And even though Floyd went limp, most officers have their very own “my prisoner went limp so I assumed they were out cold” story of combating or chasing that prisoner because they never thought that the prisoner might be trying to trick them! Most photos I have seen show Chauvin’s weight clearly on his other foot.

    Or Floyd could have been so strong and it might have taken such a big effort in order to get him on the ground that Chauvin felt it was safer to keep him down until medics arrived. Like I said earlier, the officer’s did not believe Floyd’s life was endangered by their actions, so they had no reason to stop using them.

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Like I said earlier, the officer’s did not believe Floyd’s life was endangered by their actions, so they had no reason to stop using them.

    Well, that right there is the rub. And why what they did is going to put an end to officers using that particular type of restraint and they will all just have to deal with it.

    More competent officers don't need the tactic, anyway.

Comments for this article are closed.