ChrisWeigant.com

A Wildly Optimistic Look At The Senate Races

[ Posted Wednesday, June 10th, 2020 – 17:04 UTC ]

Is anyone else out there ready for some cheerful and perhaps even downright rosy-tinted optimism? I for one certainly think it's time to write a column filled with positive vibes, and I've got just the subject. While triple crises rage throughout America (medical, economic, and injustice-based) and while Donald Trump's poll numbers continue to sink like a stone, there have been some interesting developments in another important political arena. The Senate is now not only "in play" for Democrats in November, the possibility now exists that they won't just win back the chamber, but win it back in a big blue wave that puts them firmly in control.

Realistically, or even pessimistically (at this point), the worst-case scenario for Democrats this November seems to now be losing one seat. Currently, the Senate stands at 53-to-47 Republican. If only a single state flipped parties during the election, it would likely be Alabama. Doug Jones was a fluke (remember cowboy-suited Roy Moore?) which will probably not last. So chalk Alabama up for the Republicans no matter what else happens, because even in a wildly-optimistic big-blue-wave situation I still doubt Jones would hold onto this seat (my glasses just aren't sufficiently rosy to see that one, in other words). That starts the Democrats at a net loss of one seat, down 46 seats to the Republicans' 54.

But then let's swing the needle all the way from pessimistic to optimistic, just to see what that scenario would look like. Hold onto your hats folks, because if Democrats won all the states that already seem solid for them and all the states which are currently tied or close to it and all three longshots, then they would flip a whopping eleven Senate seats. Add in a Jones loss in Alabama, and you'd wind up with a 57-to-43 Democratic Senate.

This, obviously, would also mean Joe Biden won the presidency (because such a blue wave would be impossible if Trump wins). So incoming President Biden would have close to a supermajority in the Senate to work with, and the remaining Republicans would be quaking in their boots after such an epic loss. That would almost guarantee Biden will be able to get some major legislation accomplished.

So how do we flip eleven states? Let's take them in three groups -- "Solid Leads," "Close Calls," and "Surfin' The Wave."

 

Solid Leads

Democrats have big polling leads -- seven points or better -- in four states already. Notably, this is precisely what they'd need to take control of the Senate if Biden wins and Jones loses in Alabama. It would leave the Senate 50-50 with Biden's veep there to break the tie.

First up is Montana, where Steve Bullock now has a 7-point lead. Bullock is a very popular two-term governor who was earlier this year persuaded (against his stated wishes, while he was still running for president) to enter the Senate race. Since he's already previously and recently won statewide races (he's the sitting governor) and is now polling extremely well, he'll probably walk away with this one.

Then there's Maine, where Susan Collins recently wrested the title of "Most-disliked Senator in their own state" from Mitch McConnell (the previous holder of this dubious distinction... more on him in a moment). Democrat Sara Gideon is running nine points ahead of Collins already. Maine has been absolutely carpet-bombed with ads for this race, to the point where Mainers are already sick of them all, so it now seems that few minds will be persuaded by any additional advertising.

Next up is Arizona, where astronaut (and husband of Gabby Giffords) Mark Kelly is up a whopping 13 points over Martha McSally. This race is notable for two reasons. The first is the strange path McSally took to the Senate. She ran for one seat, was beaten by Kyrsten Sinema, and then was appointed by the governor to fill a vacancy in the state's other Senate seat. So she's already lost one Senate race in Arizona. Kelly is very well-liked and appears to be cruising to victory. The second reason the race is notable, of course, is that the seat was vacated by the death of John McCain. Think of that symbolism for a moment. Oh, and did I mention that before McCain, this seat was held by Barry Goldwater? That's about as conservative a seat as you can get, meaning if Democrats flip it, it'll really hurt the Republicans in a deep-down psychological way.

And finally we have Colorado, where ex-governor John Hickenlooper (another refugee from the Democratic presidential race) is up an incredible 17 points over incumbent Senator Cory Gardner. In short, Colorado already seems to be in the bag for Democrats, and we'll soon be able to start calling Colorado "blue" instead of "purple."

 

Close Calls

An evenly-tied Senate would be nice, if only just to see Mitch McConnell removed from power, but a bigger majority would be extremely helpful to an incoming President Biden (mostly because then one single Democratic senator couldn't gum up the whole works). So let's take a look at four more races that are now polling close to even. We'll do these in descending order of probability of a Democratic pickup, according to the most-recent polling.

Astonishingly, Iowa is the first on the list. Theresa Greenfield is up three points over incumbent Republican Joni Ernst. Iowa has been hit hard by Donald Trump's trade war with China, and the bailout payments to farmers have not papered over the blow all that much. And all that was true before the coronavirus hit. Now, Trump appears to be teeing up China as one of his main issues for his campaign, which means Iowa farmers will likely have to look forward to many more years of taking it on the chin before they can even begin to repair their trade with China. So perhaps the Democrat leading here isn't all that astonishing, when you think about it.

This next one, however, is beyond astonishing. Are you sitting down? Former Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath is leading Mitch McConnell by one point in the Kentucky polls. Wouldn't it be downright delicious for Democrats if McConnell is not just stripped of his gavel but also kicked out of the Senate as well? You'd have to go back to Eric Cantor's loss (for Republicans) or Tom Daschle's defeat (for Democrats) to find such an earthshaking loss of power. And please remember (for those who are scoffing right now) that Kentucky just elected a Democratic governor -- so it's not that far-fetched to think they might go for a Democratic senator as well.

North Carolina is currently tied between Democrat Cal Cunningham and incumbent Republican Thom Tillis. This was always going to be a close race, and the polling has shown exactly that. There has been a lot of interest in the race, hence there has also been a lot of polling. But none of it shows either candidate with a solid lead (they've bounced back and forth), and currently the race is exactly tied.

Almost as astonishing as McConnell's dicey position is the fact that Lindsey Graham is now tied with Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison in South Carolina. This would also be a stunning rebuke from a previously red state to those who have tied themselves the tightest to Donald Trump's fortunes (especially considering that Harrison is African-American).

These four races are all individual contests, of course. A mixed result is entirely possible. But if Democrats even pick up one or two of these seats, it will pretty much guarantee they'll flip the chamber. And if a big blue wave does indeed develop -- one to match the size of the one we experienced in the 2018 midterms -- then all four of them could actually flip. In this rosiest of scenarios, this would leave Democrats with a gain of eight seats and a loss of one, leaving them with a 54-to-46 majority.

 

Surfin' The Wave

But why stop there? If we're going to get optimistic, let's get ridiculously optimistic! After all, we're fleshing out the "best case imaginable" possibility, and in this case we'd have to consider three other races.

The first isn't even a certainty yet. It all hinges on which candidate the Republicans nominate in their primary (which won't happen until early August). But if history repeats itself, Democrats could be looking at a chance to pick up a Senate seat in Kansas. Yes, that's right -- I just said Kansas.

This hinges on Republican Kris Kobach winning the GOP nomination. Kobach is even further to the right than Trump on immigration, and is a proud proponent of the "rampant voter fraud" fraud. And while hardcore Kansas Republicans love him, virtually nobody else does. Much like Martha McSally, he could wind up being a two-time statewide loser. Kobach previously ran for governor, and lost to a Democrat. In Kansas. If he's nominated for the Senate race, he could be on his way to wiping out not just one but two important statewide offices for the Republican Party. So if the stars align in the primary, Democrats could be looking at a real chance for a surprise pickup in the Sunflower State.

The other two races are both in Georgia. As we just saw, Stacey Abrams claiming that she lost the governor's race because the voting process was "rigged" against her is now sounding a lot more credible to a lot more people. The groundwork Abrams did of signing up as many new Democratic voters as she possibly could (mostly in and around Atlanta) continues to pay off, though -- more Democrats just voted in their primary than Republicans. And now Georgia's voters are seething with rage over how the primary election was bungled in (surprise, surprise) precincts with lots of minority voters (Democratic precincts, obviously) while lily-white suburban voters were in and out of their polling places in 20 minutes. Which means Democratic voter motivation in November could very well be off the charts.

We may not know the results from both Georgia seats in November, however, as while one of the seats just had a primary, the other will only have (essentially) an open primary election in November. If none of the multiple candidates from both parties wins an outright majority of the vote, then there'll be a runoff later on to decide the race. But no matter how long it takes, at this point both of Georgia's seats have to be seen as plausibly in play for the Democrats.

 

Conclusion

We've now gotten back to where we began. If there is not just a blue wave but a giant blue tsunami this November, then Democrats could wind up flipping eleven seats while Republicans only flip one. This would leave Democrats with 57 Senate seats to the Republicans' 43. That is only three seats shy of a supermajority. And it would be a stunning and historic power realignment on Capitol Hill.

It's still far too early to assign probabilities of any of this happening. In all but a few of these states, there simply hasn't been that much polling done to date. Voters aren't yet fully engaged in the Senate races, as well. Also, in most places, the ad wars haven't even begun. So things could always change. And the likelihood is (as always) that the actual outcome won't match either the most pessimistic or the most optimistic scenarios -- it'll likely be somewhere in the middle.

Even so, it's certainly fun to put on a pair of rosy-tinted glasses to view the state of the Senate races at this point. While it would likely take a political near-miracle for Democrats to walk away with all of these races, it's not exactly far-fetched to think that they'll pick up at least a goodly portion of them. And the bigger the margin of seats, the easier it will be to get anything done. If only one or two Democratic senators can shut legislation down then whatever passes is going to be a lot more middle-of-the-road. But if it takes a group of four or five of them to do so, the chances for more progressive legislation increase dramatically. We're still a long way away from the election, but at this point Democrats' chances are looking better and better at not just flipping control of the Senate but winding up with a pretty strong majority when all the dust settles.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

96 Comments on “A Wildly Optimistic Look At The Senate Races”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's still far too early to assign probabilities of any of this happening.

    I imagine that the sports betting industry would disagree with that assertion.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I also imagine that Moscow Mitch would just go away if he loses the majority. That's our best chance of getting rid of him. He's old and feeble, but I don't feel good about Amy McGrath.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, JFC, glad to see you start this one off … may be a good omen! :)

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    What happened to the optimistic part?

    You keep talking about flipping seats and control of the Senate yet no seats or control is being flipped in your scenario.

    All 100 seats will still be occupied by big money lackeys.

    As you admitted we are suffering from three crises brought on by big money controlling our political process.

    Three strikes and you're out.

    It hasn't worked for decades and it time to stand up and demand and end to it.

    Yet all you offer is feel good nonsense to perpetuate the lie.

    Shame on you.

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.
    Get FUCKING real.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    Chris

    Great writeup, CW!

    Georgia is sure going to be interesting in 2020 because that peach is ripe for the picking. The mere fact that the GOP is even in peril of losing Georgia on multiple fronts tells you everything you need to know.

    While triple crises rage throughout America (medical, economic, and injustice-based) and while Donald Trump's poll numbers continue to sink like a stone, there have been some interesting developments in another important political arena.

    I know, right!? And did anyone else perchance notice the fact that all of the aforementioned multiple crises have allowed Joe Biden to become the "change" candidate and therefore force Trump into the very rigid box of being the candidate for the "status quo"... in an election year where Americans are overwhelmingly in need of and taking to the streets in record numbers protesting for that change?

    Everywhere you look, Biden has become the change agent while Trump seeks to maintain the status quo. Examples:

    * The NFL now supports the silent protests of its players. Trump: Status quo

    * NASCAR bans the confederate flag. Trump voices his support for the Confederate flag of traitors to America.

    * States across America want to allow voters to have access to voting without subjecting themselves to contracting SARS-CoV-2 and possibly losing their lives. Trump: Status quo.

    Of course, I could go on... but I'm sure y'all get the idea.

    __________________

    p.s. Just to revisit an earlier commentary, can we now make a call on #8 of the 13 keys of Allan Lichtman?

    8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

    Just saying. :)

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    4

    Three strikes and you're out.

    I agree. Your three strikes are up, as far as I'm concerned, and your ass should already be out.

    It hasn't worked for decades and it time to stand up and demand and end to it.

    How about an end to your endless bullshit?

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.
    Get FUCKING real.

    Get effing lost, you troll.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    Anybody need a laugh? CNN responds to Trump whining about their polling and threatening to sue CNN (duh):

    CNN Communications
    @CNNPR

    Official response from CNN General Counsel to
    @TeamTrump‘s letter demanding CNN apologize for a poll that shows @JoeBiden leading.

    https://twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1270802155201576962

    Excerpts:

    * “To my knowledge, this is the first time in its 40 year history that CNN had been threatened with legal action because an American politician or campaign did not like CNN’s polling results.”

    * “To the extent we have received legal threats from political leaders in the past, they have typically come from countries like Venezuela or other regimes where there is little or no respect for a free and independent media.”

    * “Your letter is factually and legally baseless. It is yet another bad faith attempt by the campaign to threaten litigation to muzzle speech it does not want voters to read or hear. Your allegations and demands are rejected in their entirety.”

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    So my three strikes are up according to you.

    That just shows how clueless you are.

    It is impossible for me to have any strikes as I have not been allowed up to the plate.

    You are the troll.

    Asstroll to be more pre3cise.

    But don't get lost. Please continue proving what a pitiful sack of stupidity you are.

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    I did not realize just how much you are like Trump until your last post.

    When you Asstroll my comments on One Demand your comments are just bad faith attempts to muzzle speech you don't want voters (citizens) to read or hear. Your allegations and demands are rejected in their entirety.

    Maybe AssTrump is a better term to use to address you.

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    8

    Well, I am certainly no "Don Harris," I will give you that.

    I have none of the credentials normally listed in a bio. No degrees, no years of running a successful business and no experience in political campaigns or activism. I am simply an average person that has been working and living at survival mode. But I have the only credentials that I believe really matters. I am a citizen and I have an idea that may improve our political system.

    ~ Don Harris

    Thanks ever so much for your infinite ignorance to publish your bio that outlines your dearth of anything, I have easily been able to ascertain that I'm everything you're not.

    Remember this?

    Repeated for the third time:

    [54] Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [49] -

    Yes. You are a troll. Deal with it.

    As for your language, you are pushing me very very close to banning the first person ever from my site. You have been warned, and this is your final warning.

    If ignoring you doesn't work, then banning you just might. Address the issues in the articles or the comments to those articles, and quit with your own monomania, because nobody's listening. Instead, you are just trolling.

    And we're ALL way beyond getting tired of it.

    Is that clear enough?

    -CW

    [Thursday, April 2nd, 2020 at 16:05 UTC]

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, noes!

    Now Don "Troll" Harris is really upset with me, and I have the back-to-back comments being called names by him to prove he is.

    Oh, golly gee, now my "feelers" are really hurt. *shakes head*

    Thanks for letting me know how thinned skin you are, Don. You should consider adding that to your pathetic bio... right there somewhere between "no degrees" and "average person."

    *ROTFLMAO*

  12. [12] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    You wrote, at one point, regarding the Arizona Senate race:

    "The second reason the race is notable, of course, is that the seat was vacated by the death of John McCain. Think of that symbolism for a moment. Oh, and did I mention that before McCain, this seat was held by Barry Goldwater? That's about as conservative a seat as you can get, meaning if Democrats flip it, it'll really hurt the Republicans in a deep-down psychological way."

    I'm having a hard time with this. Let's say it's November after the election. The GOP has lost McCain's Senate seat in Arizona, along with control of the Senate and the White House. The Democratic agenda looks to be passed as law within the next two years. The Supreme Court is about to be packed to 17 justices, with all the new ones liberals.

    But across Washington DC, across the boardrooms and think tanks and foundations and party headquarters and media newsrooms of the Republican Party, men and women are thinking, "I can't go to work today. Something's wrong with me, something I can't figure out. I just feel down, like it's not worth fighting the Democrats anymore. It's ... it's ... I know. I know now - it's Barry's seat. We lost Barry's seat. We had it in 1986, it was our core. I woke up every day to fight Clinton, to fight Kerry, to fight Obama, knowing we still had Barry's seat, even though he retired from it 35 years ago now. God, perhaps I'll just give up. Why bother? We've lost Barry's seat."

    I don't think politicians are quite as sensitive as all that. "Moral victories" take a back seat to real ones, and politicians count votes, not virtue points. 35 years ago, to an American politician, is ancient history. And finally, it's downright insulting to any reader's intelligence on this site to suggest that politicians have "deep down psychological" motivations. It's all up front, all the time.

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    JohnFromCensornati [2] -

    Could be, but is KY one of those states where the gov gets to replace senators? If Mitch wins re-election but loses control of the Senate, he might just HAVE to stay there otherwise it'd add one more to the Dem majority!

    That would be poetic justice, watching him squirm.

    Heh.

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [5] -

    Good points all around. I've been waiting for some intrepid WH reporter to ask why Trump says (during hostage videos) that he "supports peaceful protests" but then turns around and slams Kaepernick for doing just that. Can't have that one both ways. Pence needs to be asked the same question, in reference to that Colts/49ers game stunt he pulled.

    Also, GREAT point about the Licthman list!

    :-)

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [7] -

    Yeah, that was pretty darn funny. Team Trump is calling the WAAAHmbulance to save them...

    Heh.

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    John M from Ct. [12] -

    Yeah, you're probably right. But hey, I was being extra-optimistic, remember?

    Heh.

    I do think these things lurk in the back of people's minds, especially politicians who have been around forever. We took back Newt Gingrich's House seat, and wasn't there a similar one in TX (Trent Lott maybe?) as well?

    On the GOP side, they crowed about taking Kennedy's Senate seat, right up until Liz Warren took it back.

    They're not tangible victories, but the symbolic victories do have a background influence, I'd argue...

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [10] -

    You know what?

    You're right.

    [TWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!!!]

    I am, for the first time ever, flashing a yellow card.

    To Don Harris -

    You have now been yellow-carded.

    For the next week (approximately, we'll see how it goes...), you have been frozen out of your account. All I've done (so far) is to change your password.

    This means all you have to do to log in is guess what password I've now assigned to you. Good luck with that.

    I sat down tonight to answer some comments, fully intending to go back over the last few weeks, but you know what? It only took one day's comments for me to tire once again of your endless stream of moosepoop.

    This site is not a public service which allows you to heap abuse upon me and your fellow commenters. It (like Twitter) is a private entity with its own rules. You have absolutely ignored them. You have also ignored all entreaties for you to change your ways, from me and from plenty of others, as Kick points out. So you are now in the penalty box for a week (or so).

    You have a clear choice to make, here. You have three paths to choose from.

    (1) You can change your ways and redefine yourself as a constructive voice here. If you do so, you'll be allowed back into the CW.com universe. After one week's penalty, of course. This means not trying to create other usernames or any other spamming techniques, and gracefully re-entering the conversation in a week's time, having seriously changed your ways.

    (2) You can accept that you are not welcome here, and go elsewhere. If you do this gracefully and exit the stage responsibly, then all your previous comments will remain intact on the site's archives, to boost your tilting-at-windmills political philosophy.

    (3) You can continue to be a pest. In this case -- for whatever reason I determine -- then I will simply DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT entirely. This means that EVERY SINGLE COMMENT you've EVER posted here will magically disappear from the archives.

    Call option (3) the "red card," if you will.

    It's up to you, dude. You have been warned more times than I (or Kick, for that matter) can count. You have ignored these warnings. So you are now paying the price. Deal with it and change your ways, and you'll be welcomed back. Continue down the path you've blazed, and you will be completely erased from the memory of this site.

    That is your choice.

    You'll get an email from me in a week's time with a new password you will be able to use to log in again. And from then on you'll still be on VERY thin ice.

    Doing this brings me no pleasure, I should point out. As I have said, this site is now 14 years old and you are THE FIRST commenter who has ever warranted this penalty, which I have been resisting for longer than I can now even remember. But I think everyone else here can fully agree, you have more than deserved it.

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I'm going to go watch Colbert now... kinda lost the urge to answer comments, if you know what I mean.

    Sigh.

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    DAMN!!!!! CW just dropped the biggest microphone on DH!

    Just curious CW...I understand why you never wrote an article about OneDamnMan, but did you ever lay out the reasons for him why it would not be a positive experience for anyone involved if you did? He says you’ve never explained to him why you won’t, but then again he is delusional — so knowing if anything he says is true is really just a crapshoot!

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Squandered opportunity comes knockin' … again.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    A Wildly Optimistic Look At The Senate Races

    Well, at least you concede that it's pie in the sky wishful thinking, eh? :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC,

    Russ,

    I have seen more than two just in videos of the police reacting to protesters today. There are plenty of video showing officers allowing the protesters’ words to get the best of them and they snap. It is disappointing to see officers not able to control their anger over words.

    I would be happy to look over your facts and see if I concur.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I just hope police all over have learned the lesson that great care needs to be taken when restraining people and it would be nice if they could acknowledge that learning.

    But only black people, right?? :^/

    What part of OFFICER CHAUVIN DID NOTHING WRONG is unclear to you??

    Not only is it what *I* have been saying, but RUSS said it as well...

    Russ and I are as far apart on the agreement factor as is possible to be and yet we agree on this point..

    Doesn't that tell you anything???

    No one learned a lesson because there was no lesson to learn because no one, except Floyd, did anything wrong or illegal..

    I can't make it any simpler than that...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know what would save even more lives? If we discussed why people who resist arrest should be held accountable for what their decision to resist results in. The officers do take great care in restraining people by using non-lethal techniques. Over 12 officers were brought in to compel Eric Gardner to comply — Going to great lengths to be able to force compliance with each officer having to use the least amount of force necessary to accomplish that goal. Despite their best effort, Gardner died. Forcing the police to use physical force to get you to comply can result in unintended deadly repercussions and people do not want to acknowledge this.

    Exactly... If there is any lesson to be learned here it needs to be learned by the crooks and scumbags... And the lesson to be learned is a simple one.

    You Fight The Law?? The Law Wins... EVERY TIME..

    THAT is the lesson to be learned.. And it's black criminals who apparently, need to learn it..

    I say that because we NEVER see a response like this when a white criminals dies at the hands of police...

    Hearing the black community claiming that Michael Brown was murdered by police and making a martyr out of him only serves to condemn more young black men to death! If they are being made to believe that Brown attempting to disarm a police officer was an acceptable action for Brown to take and that the police were wrong to respond with deadly force; then we can count on more officer involved shootings of young black men occurring.

    Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...

    We have a winner!! Tell 'im what he's won, Johnny!!

    That is why this keeps happening.. Because there is no downside.. The scumbag who fights and is killed gets instant martyrdom and a eulogy from Al Fat Cat Sharpton and the family wins the ghetto lottery...

    All because the media creates a narrative that makes young black men WANT to fight and get killed by cops.. They're stuck in the ghetto anyways, the reasoning goes, so why not go out in a blaze of martyrdom...

    As usual, every bad thing about these things.... It's the media's fault..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was unaware of that. I would hope that their agency requires that officers begin CPR as soon as possible (except in cases where there are gunshot wounds to the victim), but many departments do not require officers to act as medical first responders. They just wait for the medics to arrive. If their SOP required Chauvin to act, them this is where negligence would be argued against Chauvin, and rightly so.

    If this was SOP (which there are no facts to support) then an administrative reprimand is all that is needed.. Not a criminal charge...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, I think if his department does allow knee to neck, Chauvin is STILL done for … if you know what I mean and, I'm not sure that you do. :)

    Nope..

    This is gonna go down exactly like the Michael Brown/Darren Wilson incident...

    Loud irrational immediate charges to placate the mob and then, when cooler heads prevail, a quiet dismissal...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Sorry, cannot do the homework as I do not have a Times subscription.

    If their department doesn’t allow knee to neck, then Chauvin is done for. My argument has always been based on the belief that they were using state approved restraint maneuvers... so I just wasted three days sounding like an asshat. Beautiful! Gonna go drink until I remember some repressed memories...ya’ll have a good one!

    You give up to easily..

    And you KNOW you can't believe anything Victoria posts.. She is completely ignorant of LEO procedures and the law..

    And the NY GRIME??? Com'on, Russ.. Yer smarter that that...

    Former officer reacts to Minneapolis Police policy that allows neck restraint

    SHELBY COUNTY, Tenn. — Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin is charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.

    In the now-viral video of Floyd’s death, viewers watch as Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than 8 minutes as Floyd tells the officer and gathering crowd he can’t breathe.

    FOX13 looked at the Minneapolis Police Department’s Use of Force Policy and found that “neck restraint” is included as an option available to officers, then spoke to several current and former officers who said none of them were ever trained to use a move like that to subdue a citizen.
    https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/local/former-officer-reacts-minneapolis-police-policy-that-allows-neck-restraint/YLCUAYTCTZFJVPN4AVW645IFCM/

    I can cite many MANY more examples if you don't believe that one..

    Com'on, Russ.. You just HAVE to realize that the NY Grime nor Victoria is not the source to base ANYTHING on...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    George Floyd death: Experts say knee-to-neck restraint is dangerous, but Minneapolis allows it

    The way a Minneapolis police officer restrained George Floyd before he died — placing his knee on Floyd's neck while the man lay on his stomach — is widely discredited by law enforcement experts because it can cause suffocation.

    But the technique is allowed in Minneapolis.

    Floyd gasped for air and called for help, but officer Derek Chauvin calmly kept his position for at least eight minutes, including after Floyd stopped speaking or moving. Other officers stood by as bystanders berated them and pleaded for them to check for a pulse.

    Horrific video of the incident has sparked protests and looting in the Twin Cities and around the country. The four officers involved were fired; Chauvin was arrested Friday and charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/29/george-floyd-experts-say-neck-restraint-allowed-minneapolis-can-kill/5274334002/

    You can ignore the political gobbly-gook from this source and the NY GRIME about how it's condemned across the country.. They cite no examples and it's pure CYA politics....

    The FACT is, Minneapolis PD allowed and trained their officers in the use of the move.

    Even if this were not a legitimate police restrangement technique....

    My guys are still under a judicial mistrangement order... that blue thing I got from her! They could be exposing themselves!
    -Vince Skulley, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    :D

    Even if the technique not part and parcel to the repertoire of the Minneapolis PD (It is) it's not criminal to violate Police SOP...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can do this all day.."
    -Captain America

    GEORGE FLOYD DEATH
    Minneapolis police rendered 44 people unconscious with neck restraints in five years.

    Minneapolis police used neck restraints at least 237 times during that span, and in 16 percent of the incidents the suspects and other individuals lost consciousness, the department's use-of-force records show. A lack of publicly available use-of-force data from other departments makes it difficult to compare Minneapolis to other cities of the same or any size.

    Police define neck restraints as when an officer uses an arm or leg to compress someone's neck without directly pressuring the airway. On May 25, Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was captured on video kneeling on the neck of a prone and handcuffed George Floyd for eight minutes — including nearly three minutes after he had stopped breathing.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/minneapolis-police-rendered-44-people-unconscious-neck-restraints-five-years-n1220416

    237 times, that allowed move was used by Minneapolis and not a single death was recorded..

    You people really need to take a step back from the hysterical emotionalize and look at things in the cold light of objective FACT...

    The restraint hold Officer Chauvin used was allowed.. It was allowed because it was effective..

    It's been used almost 240 times in the last 5 years and never caused a SINGLE SOLITARY DEATH...

    Floyd died because he had a bad heart and he had meth and fentynal in his system and chose to fight the law in that condition...

    The law won...

    That is the beginning and end of Floyd's story...

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record...

    Video evidence. Minnesota allows that maneuver -- banned across America -- only in certain circumstances, and this didn't fit the description. Also, the bystanders had to convince the officers to check Mr. Floyd's pulse. At one point, Chauvin threatened the bystanders with mace.

    Here is Victoria's link to the NY GRIME. It says NOTHING like what she claims it to say.....

    On May 25, Minneapolis police officers arrested George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, after a convenience store employee called 911 and told the police that Mr. Floyd had bought cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill. Seventeen minutes after the first squad car arrived at the scene, Mr. Floyd was unconscious and pinned beneath three police officers, showing no signs of life.

    By combining videos from bystanders and security cameras, reviewing official documents and consulting experts, The New York Times reconstructed in detail the minutes leading to Mr. Floyd’s death. Our video shows officers taking a series of actions that violated the policies of the Minneapolis Police Department and turned fatal, leaving Mr. Floyd unable to breathe, even as he and onlookers called out for help.

    The day after Mr. Floyd’s death, the Police Department fired all four of the officers involved in the episode. On May 29, the Hennepin County attorney, Mike Freeman, announced third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter charges against Derek Chauvin, the officer seen most clearly in witness videos pinning Mr. Floyd to the ground. Mr. Chauvin, who is white, kept his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds, according to the criminal complaint against him. Our video shows that Mr. Chauvin did not remove his knee even after Mr. Floyd lost consciousness, and for a full minute after paramedics arrived at the scene.

    On June 3, Hennepin County prosecutors added a more serious second-degree murder charge against Mr. Chauvin and also charged each of the three other former officers — Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao — with aiding and abetting second-degree murder.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html

    Just a small blurb, without any substantiation or factual support...

    And, of course, we know how the NY GRIME will lie and bullshit to further their cop-hating agenda... THIS is well-documented..

    The knee to the neck restraining move is (or likely WAS) allowed by Minneapolis PD...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    As to Russ??? You should have more faith in your arguments.. In THIS subject... I do. :D

    TRUST.. BUT VERIFY....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone else wanna step up?? :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick-
    So my three strikes are up according to you

    I guess Victoria thinks she is one of the entitled ones on another man's blog... :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I sat down tonight to answer some comments, fully intending to go back over the last few weeks, but you know what? It only took one day's comments for me to tire once again of your endless stream of moosepoop.

    Excellent use of the word 'moosepoop' :D

    "Cruel, but good word use.."
    -Jeff Goldblum, JURASSIC PARK 2, The Lost World

    :)

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Realistically, or even pessimistically (at this point), the worst-case scenario for Democrats this November seems to now be losing one seat. Currently, the Senate stands at 53-to-47 Republican. If only a single state flipped parties during the election, it would likely be Alabama. Doug Jones was a fluke (remember cowboy-suited Roy Moore?) which will probably not last. So chalk Alabama up for the Republicans no matter what else happens, because even in a wildly-optimistic big-blue-wave situation I still doubt Jones would hold onto this seat (my glasses just aren't sufficiently rosy to see that one, in other words). That starts the Democrats at a net loss of one seat, down 46 seats to the Republicans' 54.

    Factually accurate.. Keeping Alabama was a pipe dream for Weigantians.. I said at the time that Dems will simply NEVER keep Alabama for long...

    This, obviously, would also mean Joe Biden won the presidency (because such a blue wave would be impossible if Trump wins). So incoming President Biden would have close to a supermajority in the Senate to work with, and the remaining Republicans would be quaking in their boots after such an epic loss. That would almost guarantee Biden will be able to get some major legislation accomplished.

    Such wild eyed optimism is good for man of your advancing years.. :D

    "My years are not advancing as fast as you might think.."
    -Bill Murray, GROUNDHOG DAY

    :D

    More later.. Gotta go enjoy my first shower since last Tuesday... :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whew!! I feel like a new man!! :D

    "Now... On with the countdown!"
    -Kasey Kasem

    :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see the rest of your commentary is based on polls..

    Can I ask you a serious question?? It's a question for the floor if anyone else wants to take a stab at it..

    "Like our killer, we're just gonna have ta take.... a STAB at it..."
    Candy, Channeling CSI, TWO AND A HALF MEN

    :D

    Aren't you (ya'all) the least bit gun shy about basing ya'all's entire comments on polls??

    I mean, if it were me and *I* had been so fooled, so bamboozled, so utterly decimated by the polling in 2016, I would at least show a modicum of caution when using today's polls to make today's predictions..

    Hell, I would lace ANY comments/predictions with caveats and riders and IF/THEN statements and the like..

    But ya'all seem to be throwing caution to the wind and, once again, go all in with today's polls..

    Ya'all just HAVE ta know that, when ya'all are proven wrong once again (as it's nearly universally agreed by those who have rendered an opinion that ya'all WILL be wrong) the gloating coming from yours truly is gonna be.... EPIC... MONUMENTAL... Gloats To End ALL Gloats...

    So, I gots ta ask...

    Why risk it??

    I am sincerely curious..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump blasts ‘radical left’ Dems in Seattle, says ‘domestic terrorists’ take hold of city

    President Trump tweeted late Wednesday that “domestic terrorists” have taken over an area in Seattle amid George Floyd protests and blamed the city’s “radical left Democrats” for contributing to the unrest.

    "Radical Left Governor @JayInslee and the Mayor of Seattle are being taunted and played at a level that our great Country has never seen before," Trump tweeted. "Take back your city NOW. If you don’t do it, I will. This is not a game. These ugly Anarchists must be stooped (sic) IMMEDIATELY. MOVE FAST!"

    His tweet did not go unanswered. Mayor Jenny Durkan, a Democrat, took a swipe at Trump, and responded, "Make us all safe. Go back to your bunker. #BlackLivesMatter."

    Attorney General William Barr told Fox News that on May 29 the unrest was tense near the White House and "the Secret Service recommended the president go down to the bunker. We can’t have that in our country.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-blasts-radical-left-dems-in-seattle-as-he-says-domestic-terrorists-take-hold-of-city

    So, it wasn't President Trump's idea of going down to the bunker.. So, that's all a Trump/America hating media lie...

    Does anyone REALLY have any doubt that we're heading for a 2nd Civil War???

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    ov. Jay Inslee also fired back at Trump on Twitter, posting, "A man who is totally incapable of governing should stay out of Washington state’s business. 'Stoop' tweeting."

    Hundreds of protesters stormed Seattle's City Hall Tuesday night to demand Durkan's resignation, just days after seizing a six-block downtown zone that includes a shuttered police precinct. Demonstrators remained peaceful, without reports of violence or injuries, but are pushing Durkan to step down if she refuses to defund the city's police department.

    The FACTS clearly show that it's INSLEE who is incapable of governing.. He's let the terrorists and looter Trump/America hating scumbags take control of Seattle..

    What a useless waste of skin...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    The city just suffered a weekend of unrest, where officers used tear gas and pepper spray to disperse demonstrators in the area after they say they were assaulted with projectiles. Several city council members say police overreacted and needlessly exacerbated tensions.

    The Seattle Times reported Wednesday that the area in the Capitol Hill section of the city has been called CHAZ and it is “free of uniformed police.” The paper reported that the nearby police precinct that was shuttered during the protests had a new sign on Tuesday that read, “THIS SPACE IS NOW PROPERTY OF THE SEATTLE PEOPLE.”

    House Judiciary Committee member Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., told "Hannity" Wednesday that "Antifa has now designated Seattle their capital" after the protesters declared a six-block neighborhood around the precinct a "Cop Free Zone."

    Assistant Chief Deanna Nollette said barriers were removed from the front of the precinct after it became a flashpoint between officers and protesters. Police also have remained scarce in that area and in the several nights since protests have continued peacefully.

    Awwww Iddn't that sweet... the Antifa terrorist group now has a new capital...

    What's Inslee's next move?? Let HAMAS run Olympia???

    Dickweed...

    "Dickweed????"
    -Don Rafael Montero, THE MASK OF ZORRO

    Complete waste of skin...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nollette said police want to discuss reopening the precinct and noted officers are responding to 911 calls in the area, the report said. She said protesters have set up their own barricades, which are intimidating to some residents.

    First off, that can't happen here in FL.. DeSantis knows HOW to govern.. Imagine if Meth Head Gollum had won the election..

    Anywho.. IF that happened here, I know exactly what I would do... They are called FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION exercises...

    And Antifa terrorists would NOT like the result..

    So, go ahead, Antifa.. TRY... Bring it.. If you think you have the balls....

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Last month, while looting and arson raged in Minneapolis, Trump tweeted, “I can’t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis,” Trump tweeted. “A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right."

    Trump appears intent on positioning himself as the law-and-order candidate in 2020. There is a push among some Democrats to defund police which has put Joe Biden in a tough position of trying to bring together the moderates and the liberals of the party about the best approach on policing.

    Biden was interviewed by Trevor Noah, the host of “The Daily Show,” and was asked, “If you were to become president, do you think that there would be a world where defunding the police would be a solution?”

    President Trump is the President of patriotic law and order Americans..

    Biden would be the President of Antifa terrorists and looters and other assorted scumbags..

    The outcome of 3 Nov 2020 is pre-ordained...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is 'Defund the Police' a massive political mistake?
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/defund-the-police-blm/index.html

    Of course it is...

    Only a FOOL or a MORON or someone who is brain dead would think that defunding/disbanding PDs and SOs is even viable, let alone a good idea... :eyeroll:

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    (CNN)On Friday, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser had a massive mural reading "Black Lives Matter" in block yellow lettering painted on 16th Street near the White House. The next day, activists painted another message -- in that exact same yellow lettering -- on the same street. It read: "Defund the Police."

    Amid the ongoing protests in the wake of the death of George Floyd, calls to defund the police have grown increasingly loud -- particularly among the activists who are taking to the streets to urge politicians to act.
    And in several places, governments are acting.
    On Sunday, nine members of the Minneapolis City Council, the city where Floyd died, pledged to "begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department."

    And also on Sunday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a plan to repurpose some money for law enforcement to other avenues. He tweeted:
    "This morning we committed to move resources from the NYPD to youth and social services as part of our City's budget.
    "Our young people need to be reached, not policed.
    "We can do this AND keep our city safe."

    Remind me again how Democrats "aren't serious" about defunding/disbanding the police???

    I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS that prove otherwise... :^/

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    While those moves are unlikely to impact the political futures of either de Blasio or the Minneapolis City Council members -- both are in strongly liberal enclaves -- the push for defunding the police following Floyd's death carries massive political risk for Democrats more broadly.

    Yep, Yep, Yep, Yep...

    Like I have said countless times.. For Democrats, this is 1968 all over again..

    And we know how Democrats faired in the subsequent election as far as the White House is concerned.... :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    A spokesman for Biden said in a statement Monday that the presumptive Democratic nominee does not support defunding the police.
    "Vice President Biden does not believe that police should be defunded," spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement obtained by CNN. "He hears and shares the deep grief and frustration of those calling out for change, and is driven to ensure that justice is done and that we put a stop to this terrible pain. Biden supports the urgent need for reform -- including funding for public schools, summer programs, and mental health and substance abuse treatment separate from funding for policing -- so that officers can focus on the job of policing."
    National Democrats, meanwhile, have spent the last few days dodging questions about whether they support defunding efforts.

    Yep.. Biden is going to have to change his tune if he wants support from the Hysterical Radical Wing of the Democrat Party..

    Joe Biden can't win without them..

    And does anyone here HONESTLY believe that a group so hysterical and so out of control will be reasonable about their demands??

    It's their way or the highway...

    Biden can't be seen pandering to the hysterical wing of the Democrat Party or he will see his support from conservative Democrats and the Independents and NPAs evaporate..

    Either way, Biden's goose is cooked...

    It's simply amazing.. Once again, Democrats have been maneuvered into a PERFECT LOSE LOSE situation... :D

    Way ta go, President Trump!! :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    The political problem for Democrats is this: They are now being backed into a corner by activists who are demanding radical change. But it's not at all clear that a majority of the country supports a policy that would defund the police. Democratic leaders need to change the conversation to be about reforming police departments and re-allocating some resources for more community building and less militarization.
    If they can't, the call to "Defund the Police" will continue to be music to Trump's ears.

    Yep.. Exactly...

    Democrat leadership (such as it is) is at the mercy of the radical cop-killing Trump/America hating Left...

    And seeing said "leadership" squirm and trying to extricate themselves from the monster they have created is really REALLY fun to watch.. :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    America's Liberals Have Become Radically Intolerant

    Woke up and drink the Kool-Aid

    Become??? They have ALWAYS been this way... Especially since Jun of 2015...

    The thing is, they have been given more and more rope and now it's patently obvious to even the most dullard of Americans

    Make no mistake, the same mentality that allowed the Democrat Party to create the KKK is the exact same mentality we are seeing in the radical terroristic hysterical Left...

    The Democrat Party is still the Party of slave owners.. They simply changed the plantation...

    Hence... #WalkAway...

  48. [48] 
    TheStig wrote:

    17-

    The Umpire Strikes Back!

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, Daniel Patrick Moynihan got it backward when he said everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

    The late senator’s axiom expressed a principle that until a few days ago cemented the wall between news and commentary at decent newspapers. We’ve labored under a delusion that it’s vital to protect reporting from encroachments by ideologies, whether of owners, senior editors, or individual writers. Our first duty was, we thought, to inform readers, tell them what was really going on, and only secondarily to persuade them to a particular point of view.

    But that is no longer the case, as a fiasco at the New York Times over an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton has made clear. It’s news that threatens opinion, not the other way around.

    The New York Times newsroom, righteously inflamed by urban protests against the police, revolted after its bosses allowed Cotton to advocate the forceful restoration of order on vandals and marauders. The paper’s rampant young staff went for the jugular, claiming that giving a platform to an opinion that happens to be shared by 58% of the public endangered black employees.

    Editorial page editor James Bennet was forced out. Senior management groveled to those who had previously been their underlings and said the article did not meet the Gray Lady’s exacting standards. And then they established a new dispensation encouraging staff to stab each other in the back if an opinion article upsets them — or even gives them the “slightest pause.”

    By themselves, the news media is all but useless when it comes to actual factual news..

    Which is why I always use multiple sources to back up my facts...

    The idea that the restraint move used by Officer Chauvin was illegal is but one of the most recent examples...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    O M G!!! Could Trump/America hating Democrats get ANY more stoopid????

    The Protests Come for ‘Paw Patrol’
    A backlash is mounting against depictions of “good cops,” on television and in the street.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/arts/television/protests-fictional-cops.html

    I highly doubt it..

    This is ya'all's Democrat Party..

    Don't ya just LOVE it!!??? :eyeroll:

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    17-

    The Umpire Strikes Back!

    I thought you left...???

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought you left...???

    See what I get fer thinkin'??? :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was only a matter of time before the protests came for “Paw Patrol.”

    “Paw Patrol” is a children’s cartoon about a squad of canine helpers. It is basically a pretense for placing household pets in a variety of cool trucks. The team includes Marshall, a firefighting Dalmatian; Rubble, a bulldog construction worker; and Chase, a German shepherd who is also a cop. In the world of “Paw Patrol,” Chase is drawn to be a very good boy who barks stuff like “Chase is on the case!” and “All in a police pup’s day!” as he rescues kittens in his tricked-out S.U.V.

    But last week, when the show’s official Twitter account put out a bland call for “Black voices to be heard,” commenters came after Chase. “Euthanize the police dog,” they said. “Defund the paw patrol.” “All dogs go to heaven, except the class traitors in the Paw Patrol.”

    It’s a joke, but it’s also not. As the protests against racist police violence enter their third week, the charges are mounting against fictional cops, too. Even big-hearted cartoon police dogs — or maybe especially big-hearted cartoon police dogs — are on notice. The effort to publicize police brutality also means banishing the good-cop archetype, which reigns on both television and in viral videos of the protests themselves. “Paw Patrol” seems harmless enough, and that’s the point: The movement rests on understanding that cops do plenty of harm.

    This defund/disband the cops have moved from hysterically short-sighted to out and out maniacal insanity...

    ANY credibility that these cop-killing America hating scumbags MIGHT have had (They don't.. It's subzero) has just plunged mightily into the realm of complete and utter lunacy..

    And THIS is the group that ya'all are saying will win in November????

    Shirley ya'all can't be serious!!???

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    The protests arrived in the midst of a pandemic that has alienated Americans from their social ties, family lives and workplaces. New and intense relationships with content have filled the gap, and now our quarantine consumptions are being reviewed with an urgently political eye. The reckoning has come for newspapers, food magazines, Bravo reality shows and police procedurals.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Continue reading the main story
    Last week, Tom Scharpling, an executive producer of “Monk,” criticized his own show on Twitter: “If you — as I have — worked on a TV show or movie in which police are portrayed as lovable goofballs, you have contributed to the larger acceptance that cops are implicitly the good guys.” Griffin Newman, an actor who appeared in two episodes of “Blue Bloods” as a detective, donated his $11,000 in earnings to a bail fund, inspiring other actors who have played cops to do the same. LEGO has halted marketing on its “LEGO City Police Station” and “Police Highway Arrest” sets. A&E has pulled its reality show “Live PD” from the schedule. On Tuesday night, “Cops,” the show that branded suspects as “bad boys” and spawned the whole genre of crime reality television, was canceled after 32 seasons.

    The CANCEL CULTURE in full swing... It's replaced Political Correctness as the "process" that needs to be removed from decent society...

    JL, it's a shame your child won't grow up with the valuable lessons taught by Paw Patrol.. I know it was a BIG part of my grand children's lives and they are better people for it..

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cops are not just television stars; they are television’s biggest stars. Crime shows are TV’s most popular genre, now making up more than 60 percent of prime-time drama programming on the big four broadcast networks. The tropes of the genre are so predictable that a whole workplace sitcom, “Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” is layered atop them. “A police station was a shortcut,” Dan Goor, the show’s co-creator, has said, “because people are very aware of how police television works. You know instantly who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.”

    That shortcut now feels like a cheat: After images of a very special episode where Terry Crews is racially profiled were passed around as evidence of responsible police TV, others marked the show as “copaganda.”

    Even on television, the good guys are not always so good. In a recent report, the racial justice organization Color of Change assessed depictions of the police across television and found that modern cop shows “make heroes out of people who violate our rights.” Many of them, it argued, show the good guys committing more violations than the bad guys, making police misbehavior feel “relatable, forgivable, acceptable and ultimately good.”

    And yet, the shows were FINE for decades!

    The CANCEL CULTURE is alive and well..

    Let's just CANCEL the Democrat Party and be done with it...

    Oh wait.. THAT is what's going to happen on 3 Nov 2020....

    Can't wait..

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cops and Hollywood enjoy a symbiotic relationship, as Alyssa Rosenberg detailed in a Washington Post series in 2016 on policing in popular culture. Cops consult on movies and series, helping mold the characters to their self-conception, and then they take cues from those characters in their own police work. Police officers in Detroit have been spotted wearing the skull insignia of the Marvel antihero the Punisher, and squads in Minnesota have watched Disney’s “Zootopia” as part of their anti-bias training. “LAW & ORDER” has become President Trump’s preferred call-to-arms as the government dispatches police forces and National Guard soldiers against the protesters.

    Great movie, ZOOTOPIA

    Unfortunately with today's Dumbocrats and Trump/America haters it would never be made...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    These images show cops engaging in a kind of pantomime of protest, mimicking the gestures of the demonstrators until their messages are diluted beyond recognition. They reframe protests against racist police violence into a bland, nonspecific goal of solidarity. These moments are meant to represent the shared humanity between officers and protesters, but cops already rank among the most humanized groups in America; the same cannot be said for the black Americans who live in fear of them. Cops can dance, they can hug, they can kneel on the ground, but their individual acts of kindness can no longer obscure the violence of a system. The good-cop act is wearing thin.

    Actually, since it's factually accurate, it is not wearing thin at all..

    It's the ALL COPS ARE RACIST act that is wearing very VERY thin...

    Especially since not a single solitary Trump/America hater can come up with a SINGLE SOLITARY fact that supports their "racist cops" BS....

    Get that??

    There is not a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT that supports the "racist cops" BS....

    And yet, it still lives on...

    The illogic and hysteria of the Trump/America hating morons...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. Let's get back Radical Hysterical Democrats...

    America's Liberals Have Become Radically Intolerant

    Woke up and drink the Kool-Aid
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/woke-up-and-drink-the-kool-aid

    As I said above before I went off on a tangent...

    America's liberals have ALWAYS been radically intolerant.. Every since they gave this country the KKK...

    "These are the facts of the case.. And they are undisputed.."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can do this all day.."
    -Captain America

    But, what Captain America can do all day versus what you do here are two totally and completely separate things and are not really analogous in any way, shape or form, you understand.

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ and I are as far apart on the agreement factor as is possible to be and yet we agree on this point..
    Doesn't that tell you anything???

    It sure does.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, everyone is not entitled to their own opinion. The only ones that may be printed are those approved by news reporters, whose job is ostensibly to collect facts. Toe the line, or you’ll be canceled.

    The contrary, traditional view has been under threat for a long time. It’s two decades since panelists discussing climate change rudely asked an acquaintance of mine why he’d been invited and looked at him uncomprehendingly when he answered, “For diversity, I suppose.” The only diversity they understood was on race, not opinion.

    Brought to you by today's Democrat Party.... :^/

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    }}}}Russ and I are as far apart on the agreement factor }}}}}as is possible to be and yet we agree on this point..
    }}}}}Doesn't that tell you anything???

    It sure does.

    Glad ta hear it... :D

    It's simple.. If what Officer Chauvin did was right if Floyd was white (and, as I have proven beyond any doubt that it IS ok, that it IS (or at least WA) permissable) is exactly the same good when Floyd is black...

    It simply CANNOT be any other way...

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just found out from my sister that there were riots in my hometown of La Mesa!!

    That's frakin' CRAZY!!!!

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is time for America to reject the pursuit of doctrinal uniformity. Time to defy the Minneapolis mob chanting “shame” at Mayor Jacob Frey because he wouldn’t submit to one final grovel and agree to eliminate the city's police force.

    There is no appeasing or avoiding today’s militants. You may not be interested in them, but they are interested in you, and they’re coming after your country. It’s past time for good, decent people to reject the corrosive new catechism and fight back. This is meant to be not only the land of the free, remember, but also the home of the brave.

    Once again, welcome to today's Democrat Party...

    How ya'all think Democrats can win in Nov with this hanging around their necks is mind-boggling...

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    La Mesa Police release timeline of protests and riots from May 30th
    https://www.kusi.com/la-mesa-police-release-timeline-of-protests-and-riots-from-may-30th/?fbclid=IwAR0G3J5P53AfEnhj1wexjOih6jsXWnVYMHU1HfaHNXPYlkhHK2I_BLODaYU

    Reality is 1000% OFFICIALLY turned on it's ear!!!

    This is utterly and complete nuts.. deranged.. demented... wonko....

    Hello Gorgeous! If you’re watching this you’re obviously back at Stargate Command. And you’re probably thinking everyone around you has gone completely wonko. With the exception of Daniel who, let’s face it, was always a little bit—
    -Vala, STARGATE SG-1

    I have officially taken the red pill... Stepped thru the mirror... Time jumped without a suit. Hit 88mph without a delorean...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Gotta get ready for a Dr appt...

    When I return....

    Former coworker who said George Floyd and Derek Chauvin 'bumped heads' as security guards retracts story
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-coworker-who-said-george-floyd-and-derek-chauvin-bumped-heads-as-security-guards-retracts-story

    More bullshit claims from Trump/America hating fools that were totally wrong!!

    Stay Tuned...

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    ... moved forward from yesterday

    Russ | EM

    Sorry, cannot do the homework as I do not have a Times subscription.

    Okay, then... your homework is rescinded since you have supplied a way better excuse than "the dog ate my homework!" My homework was easy, though; all you had to do was watch a video. I didn't even ask for a book report on it.

    If their department doesn’t allow knee to neck, then Chauvin is done for.

    Wait, what? I said: "Minnesota allows that maneuver -- banned across America -- only in certain circumstances, and this didn't fit the description." That statement there was merely my opinion, Russ, and I also should have said "Minneapolis allows that maneuver" instead of saying "Minnesota." I goobed it up.

    My argument has always been based on the belief that they were using state approved restraint maneuvers...

    Well, look what I found:

    5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

    DEFINITIONS I.

    Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

    Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

    Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)

    Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

    PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.

    A. The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)

    B. The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)

    1. On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;

    2. For life saving purposes, or;

    3. On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.

    C. Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)

    D. After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)

    1. After a neck restraint or choke hold has been used on a subject, sworn MPD employees shall keep them under close observation until they are released to medical or other law enforcement personnel.

    2. An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of the subject, that the technique was used on the subject.

    http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300

    Definitions

    Passive Resistance: A response to police efforts to bring a person into custody or control for detainment or arrest. This is behavior initiated by a subject, when the subject does not comply with verbal or physical control efforts, yet the subject does not attempt to defeat an officer’s control efforts. (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Holy moly... OMG! While I was just now copying the requisite passages for our perusal, it literally changed right before my eyes. If you invoke that link above, you will get the updated manual. So I can actually tell you when the online manual was updated: Just now on 06/11/20 between Noon and 1:00 p.m. Central.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    so I just wasted three days sounding like an asshat.

    No, you didn't... it was 4 days! I'm just kidding. You did not sound like an "asshat"... much more like a "pretzel" like EM said. Still kidding! :) You could actually be correct; we still need more evidence (bring it) that we don't yet have. That NY Times video homework showed gaps we need filled in.

    Beautiful! Gonna go drink until I remember some repressed memories...ya’ll have a good one!

    Drinks! I missed drinks! I hate when I miss stuff.

    Hugs XOXOXOXO :)

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    Okay, weird!

    Now the Minneapolis PD has reverted back and shows "Offline." They're literally updating the online manual now.

    I got a glance at it, though, and when it comes back online with the changes they're currently making, it will have updated that section I copied and posted above to reflect amendments dated 06/09/2020... which amendment reflects the banning of choke holds and neck restraints.

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    14

    I've been waiting for some intrepid WH reporter to ask why Trump says (during hostage videos) that he "supports peaceful protests" but then turns around and slams Kaepernick for doing just that.

    Exactly this! Benedict Donald hijacked what was a 100% totally peaceful protest and redefined what it meant in order to fit his personal political agenda, make it about Trump and choosing sides, interjecting himself into even our sports. It wasn't his peaceful protest to define.

    Can't have that one both ways. Pence needs to be asked the same question, in reference to that Colts/49ers game stunt he pulled.

    Exactly! This fantasy of the Trump administration being on the side of the peaceful protesters is absolute and total bollocks. Just last night, Donald Trump again referred to peaceful protesters in Washington State in disparaging terms and threatened again in writing to use military force against American citizens.

    Can you imagine if Barack Obama had threatened in writing to use military force on American citizens? Their tiny little heads would have exploded.

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    17

    You know what?

    No... what?

    You're right.

    Uh...... oh. Total mic drop/hammer time by CW.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I bet I could crack the password. *nods*

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    30

    Here is Victoria's link to the NY GRIME. It says NOTHING like what she claims it to say.....

    Are you seriously this damn dumb? Can you read and comprehend the written word? If you could, you'd see that I made absolutely no claims whatsoever about what it said at the link. I simply directed Russ to the "video evidence" and gave my opinion to him. Also, not a single person that was involved in that days' long conversation that didn't involve you asked for your opinion.

    Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

  72. [72] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [4]
    [10]

    Shame on you.
    Wake up.
    Wise up.
    Rise up.
    Get FUCKING real.

    Get effing lost, you troll.

    * * * *

    Brother Don Harris,

    More than most folks here I agree that BigMoney® is a cancer in our political system, and if you'd address issues like "What about PACs" I might be more supportive. But bleating out your standard ending is annoying and if anything makes people automatically scroll through your comments without reading them, hello? CW is under no obligation to even have a comments section, let alone push anyone's agenda, idiot!

    I'm fed up with it so I hereby join the (skip this part, Elizabeth) just fuck off and disappear camp.

    You are of no damned use anymore.

  73. [73] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Mr. Weigant way to crank out the content! POLITICO is my "go to" site for the basic picture, and your's is my "go to" site for commentary. Is this a full-time endeavor for you? I've long wanted to be in this line of work, but I find myself somewhat intimidated by your excellence. Kinda like, "there's no point to switching from bass guitar (which I do well) to electric guitar because Steve Vai is as good as God will ever put on this earth."**
    **Shout out to Dalana Jane Houser in Kentucky -- you know why, Darlin'

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    60

    It sure does.

    Heh!

    Russ knows exactly what Mike is. Count on it. :)

  75. [75] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    (This is off subject, here presented for your dining and dancing pleasure)

    Proposed "28th Amendment" that I just stumbled across on Zuckerberg-book:

    1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office. And, no more perks go with them.

    2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

    3. Congress must purchase their own retirement plan, just as ALL Americans do.

    4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

    5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

    6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people (i.e. NO MORE INSIDER TRADING!!!).

    7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congress made all these contracts by and for themselves.

  76. [76] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy [73] -

    First, thanks for the kind words!

    You could indeed call it a full-time endeavor, as it takes up a monumental amount of my time.

    But I would urge you to try your own hand at commentary. My point of view is a rather unique one because I grew up near Washington DC, and thus got a foundational close-up view of how "the government" is really just a bunch of people (good and bad alike). Moving to California made me realize that not everyone gets this understanding, and most view "the government" as a sort of multiheaded nonhuman monster (this viewpoint is common from both left and right, I should add). So I started writing from the perspective "you've got to pay careful attention to the actual players" and that's what keeps me going.

    Your perspective would be different, I assume, forged by your own life experiences. So why not take a crack at it?

    Nice Steve Vai reference, just had to say that. "Details At 10" is one of the two best commentaries about the vapid nature of television news ever (Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry" is the other... although Gang Of Four's "5.45" is pretty good too).

    In any case, while I too feel what you are feeling whenever I watch the late-night comics (who are much better than I could ever be at pointing out the ridiculous nature of the news), it doesn't stop me the next day.

    My only advice would be to form your own code in writing and editing. Here are my main tenets:

    * Stay reality-based. If you get something factually wrong, apologize immediately and publicly admit it.

    * Don't personally make fun of anyone's name. Leave it to the late-night comics, it'll only bring you trouble.

    * Buy a style guide and read it. Adopt your own grammatical and editorial standards and keep to them. Especially when you're being pedantic, which is always fun to do (e.g. "TelePrompTer").

    * Try above all else (pun intended) to take the larger view. Connect the dots where you can. Look over the horizon of next week and take the longer view.

    * When you speculate, make sure you identify it clearly as speculation, not fact or even probability.

    * Know your history. If you don't, read up on it, it doesn't take that long.

    That's about it, although that's just off the top of my head.

    One last note, end where you started (bring it home, just like a guitar solo).

    So I thank you once again for the kind words!

    :-)

    -CW

  77. [77] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy [75] -

    Interesting. But they already tried #4 with the last amendment and it didn't really work (SCOTUS kind of gutted it).

    -CW

  78. [78] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Sorry, Brother Don, but I hereby join the pile on:

    [54] Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [49] -

    Yes. You are a troll. Deal with it.

    As for your language, you are pushing me very very close to banning the first person ever from my site. You have been warned, and this is your final warning.

    If ignoring you doesn't work, then banning you just might. Address the issues in the articles or the comments to those articles, and quit with your own monomania, because nobody's listening. Instead, you are just trolling.

    And we're ALL way beyond getting tired of it.

    Is that clear enough?

    -CW

    [Thursday, April 2nd, 2020 at 16:05 UTC]

  79. [79] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    OK, I gotta admit that I was just exhausted last night and was attempting to use humor in my post....but rereading it I realize that my post sounds extremely defeated and that I should leave humor to the professionals! That said, I appreciate you posting the full use of neck restraints and choke holds for Minneapolis PD. I did not think the department had banned the knee to neck maneuver completely — it is just too effective at safely controlling even the most massive and strongest individuals.

    One thing that I found very interesting was this:

    Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

    The department lists that this is only used when deadly force is authorized. I realize that they are listing it to make it clear that the ONLY time it can be used is when deadly force is authorized.

    It also makes me laugh a little because just about anything that would stop the person with minimal chance of collateral damage is allowed when officers are authorized to use deadly force. Striking the person with a wrecking ball, running them over with a steamroller, knocking them into a vat of acid....heck, cutting a rope causing an ACME safe to fall on them like you were in a Bugs Bunny cartoon — these are all allowed. When an officer is authorized to use deadly force, that means that the person in question has placed the lives of others in peril and they must be stopped.

    Which brings me back to one of CW’s comments about the officer’s playing “judge, jury, and executioner”

  80. [80] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Whoops...

    My point is that anytime we authorize officers to use deadly force, we are authorizing them to act as “judge, jury, and executioner”.

    Furthermore, not only do we expect officers to carry out these roles, we demand it of them. Just ask the school resource deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

    Scot Peterson, 56, who was taken into custody, faces multiple counts of child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury, Broward County State Attorney Mike Satz said in a statement. The charges carry a combined maximum prison sentence of nearly 97 years, he said.

    Peterson, at the time a Broward County deputy, was on duty as a school resource officer when a gunman entered the school building in Parkland, Florida, on Feb. 14, 2018, and opened fire, killing 17 people and wounding 17 others. He never went inside during the shooting, according to the sheriff’s office and surveillance video.

    While I realize that the officers were not authorized to use deadly force in Mr. Floyd’s case (which is why those used only holds deemed non-lethal); to gasp and clutch your pearls at the very thought of officers acting as “judge, jury, and executioner” when we DEMAND it of them in some cases seems like a “cop out”! (He puns proudly!)

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    One last note on “Choke Holds”... if you want to know how you can tell if an officer is using a choke hold on a person verses some other neck restraint, there is an easy test that you can use to quickly and accurately make that determination!

    If you hear the subject who is placed in the hold yell or scream anything, that is not a choke hold.

    Again, if you hear me scream, “Help! They are killing me!”; NOT a choke hold.

    If you see my mouth move but all you hear is, “Hhh...”; DEFINITELY a choke hold!

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, don't say I didn't warn you and try to set you on a more productive path ...

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … take care.

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    79|80|81

    OK, I gotta admit that I was just exhausted last night and was attempting to use humor in my post....but rereading it I realize that my post sounds extremely defeated and that I should leave humor to the professionals! That said, I appreciate you posting the full use of neck restraints and choke holds for Minneapolis PD.

    The manual was "offline" and then for a few minutes I saw the "online" manual where it's been updated to altogether ban the choke holds and neck restraints. It was weird the entire passage was amended.

    One thing that I found very interesting was this:

    Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

    I know, right!? Another interesting section:

    5-303.01 DUTY TO INTERVENE (07/28/16)
    (A-D)
    A. Sworn employees have an obligation to protect the public and other employees.

    B. It shall be the duty of every sworn employee present at any scene where physical force is being applied to either stop or attempt to stop another sworn employee when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required.

    It also makes me laugh a little because just about anything that would stop the person with minimal chance of collateral damage is allowed when officers are authorized to use deadly force. Striking the person with a wrecking ball, running them over with a steamroller, knocking them into a vat of acid....heck, cutting a rope causing an ACME safe to fall on them like you were in a Bugs Bunny cartoon — these are all allowed.

    Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote... meep! meep!

    My point is that anytime we authorize officers to use deadly force, we are authorizing them to act as “judge, jury, and executioner”.

    Furthermore, not only do we expect officers to carry out these roles, we demand it of them. Just ask the school resource deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

    Scot Peterson, 56, who was taken into custody, faces multiple counts of child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury, Broward County State Attorney Mike Satz said in a statement. The charges carry a combined maximum prison sentence of nearly 97 years, he said.

    Peterson, at the time a Broward County deputy, was on duty as a school resource officer when a gunman entered the school building in Parkland, Florida, on Feb. 14, 2018, and opened fire, killing 17 people and wounding 17 others. He never went inside during the shooting, according to the sheriff’s office and surveillance video.

    Yes, of course, Russ, and we've actually discussed this officer that hid before in "real time" where Mike insisted to everyone that Peterson had followed Standard Operational Procedure when anyone with two eyes who could read could see the evidence wherein multiple eyewitnesses had reported that Peterson "hid." I'm sure we discussed him... be right back.

    [213] Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    181

    You keep using the term “coptard” to describe Michael. Just wondering what your definition for that term is?

    With sincerest apologies to the knowledgeable and decent such as yourself, I do have quite a treasure trove of cop slang.

    coptard

    A law enforcement officer [or former] who exhibits behavior that is characteristic of a human being of below average intelligence.

    A coptard will constantly drone on and on about how knowledgeable they are about law and/or law enforcement while repeatedly demonstrating otherwise. For instance, the resident board coptard insists that Officer Peterson followed "SOP" despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Not as bad as when mall security claims to be part of “law enforcement”, but not that far off, either.

    *LOL* ... "mall cop."

    If George Zimmerman fits the definition of “coptard”, then I am sure that I will fully agree with it!

    If George Zimmerman were the real thing versus just a "wannabe cop," he would most definitely fit the definition. :)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/02/23/ftp473/#comment-116768

    See there ^^^^^^^ told you we discussed that Peterson guy.

    While I realize that the officers were not authorized to use deadly force in Mr. Floyd’s case (which is why those used only holds deemed non-lethal); to gasp and clutch your pearls at the very thought of officers acting as “judge, jury, and executioner” when we DEMAND it of them in some cases seems like a “cop out”! (He puns proudly!)

    Heh. Good pun... and you do have a point, of course, but then again you're also comparing that Peterson dude who hid and didn't do his job while a kid with an AR-15 was slaughtering a lot of people to a four-on-one situation where Mr. Floyd had no firearm, was absolutely already rear-cuffed, and he definitely was already lying prone on the pavement and unable to go anywhere. Then after he stopped moving altogether, the officers continued to use the neck restraint. Not to mention [why do we say not to mention] the other two officers who were doing whatever the heck they were doing to push his torso into the pavement at the same time Chauvin was performing the dang-near-9-minute neck restraint.

    Anyway, it appears to me that what they did definitely wasn't according to Minneapolis PD procedure, and I was right about the Peterson dude. Heh.

    I also don't see how Lane should be faulted since he tried to stop Chauvin multiple times... exactly per procedure, but then there is that "Section 5-303.01 DUTY TO INTERVENE.

    Okay. Time for drinks. Check out the video evidence if you can, and we definitely still need more evidence.

    Bring it. :)

  85. [85] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    I count 36 consecutive comments, now that has got to be a record. My scroll and ignore finger is plumb worn out. I guess some are wondering how you do it, I am wondering why.

  86. [86] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [24]

    ...Because there is no downside.. The scumbag who fights and is killed gets instant martyrdom and a eulogy from Al Fat Cat Sharpton and the family wins the ghetto lottery...

    All because the media creates a narrative that makes young black men WANT to fight and get killed by cops.. They're stuck in the ghetto anyways, the reasoning goes, so why not go out in a blaze of martyrdom...

    As usual, every bad thing about these things.... It's the media's fault..

    You're kidding, right? Do you really believe this? "...ghetto lottery?"
    "They're stuck in the ghetto anyways?"

    I do not use the word " racist" casually. Sure, it's fun (sorry, Elizabeth. Um...to be honest, not all that sorry) to tell each other to [bleep] off. And to use terms like "Trumpanzee," "Odumbo," "Dimocrats" and "Repugs."

    But, Dude.

    Your use of these phrases makes me, for the first time, wonder if you got a little racism in you. Whaddup wit dat?

    That aside, your notion that young black men
    want to die is preposterous.

    It's like saying that cops want to die on the job so they can be martyrs and their families can win the sympathy lottery.

    Yeesh!

  87. [87] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Then after he stopped moving altogether, the officers continued to use the neck restraint. Not to mention [why do we say not to mention] the other two officers who were doing whatever the heck they were doing to push his torso into the pavement at the same time Chauvin was performing the dang-near-9-minute neck restraint.

    Again, I will point out that the neck restraint (when done properly) would not be applying pressure to the neck except when the subject is actively attempting to move. I am guessing the reason that it looks like the officer’s did not change how they were positioned on Floyd when he appeared to be unconscious is that they were not putting any real pressure on Floyd since he was not struggling. George Floyd was handcuffed when he decided he would fight the officers. Once Floyd did that, his credibility was pretty much shot. He got to stay on the ground because he chose to force the officers to put him in that position.

    I also don't see how Lane should be faulted since he tried to stop Chauvin multiple times... exactly per procedure, but then there is that "Section 5-303.01 DUTY TO INTERVENE.

    Well, they were all fired before any official investigation was conducted and before the ME completed the autopsy that determined cause of death... so I am not sure the prosecutor’s office is really interested in anything but quenching the public’s thirst for revenge.

    Devon was called out to a BLM protester holding up a sign at an intersection who was being harassed by some guy in a MAGA cap. The guy was holding a sign that was supposed to inform anyone who saw it that she was a paid protester who was being paid by the Left....only instead of spelling out the word “Left”, the sign used an arrow pointing towards the sign holders’ left. But for anyone reading it, it looked like the arrow was pointing RIGHT... not left. When Devon pointed that out, the guy got real flustered and just left in a huff...saying it wasn’t his screw up; it was his wife’s mistake because she had made the sign for him! (Which only made Devon and the woman laugh at him more.)

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    87

    I am guessing the reason that it looks like the officer’s did not change how they were positioned on Floyd when he appeared to be unconscious is that they were not putting any real pressure on Floyd since he was not struggling.

    Okay, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, the word "pretzel" just occurred to me!

    So when he did stop struggling, I am guessing he was either rendered unconscious or deceased... at which point, according to MPD procedure, the use of physical force was no longer required... if it ever was required since Mr. Floyd was unarmed, already rear-handcuffed, and prone on the pavement while awaiting an ambulance!

    5-303.01 DUTY TO INTERVENE (07/28/16)

    A. Sworn employees have an obligation to protect the public and other employees.

    B. It shall be the duty of every sworn employee present at any scene where physical force is being applied to either stop or attempt to stop another sworn employee when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required.

    So who could he have harmed with his hands already rear-cuffed and no firearm, Russ? He was prone on the pavement awaiting an ambulance. Okay, don't answer since we're just going around and around in circles at this point, and we need more evidence. :)

    George Floyd was handcuffed when he decided he would fight the officers.

    See... you didn't do your homework and watch that video evidence. Floyd didn't exactly fight the officers when he was handcuffed beside his own vehicle without much effort and walked over to the side of a building whereupon he sat. He was unarmed and remained rear-cuffed throughout the entire event thereafter, until I see evidence to the contrary, which I haven't yet.

    Once Floyd did that, his credibility was pretty much shot. He got to stay on the ground because he chose to force the officers to put him in that position.

    Be that as it may (and I'm not saying I agree with it since it assumes facts not in evidence at the present time) no one "forced the officers" to continue the use of force when Mr. Floyd was clearly no longer actively resisting, and Lane did follow procedure and try to get Chauvin to stop when Mr. Floyd was no longer actively resisting.

    Well, they were all fired before any official investigation was conducted and before the ME completed the autopsy that determined cause of death...

    Well, likely because their boss saw the video available to anyone with an Internet connection and a keyboard and had access to the police report wherein details were fabricated that didn't match actual events captured for all posterity by multiple video devices.

    so I am not sure the prosecutor’s office is really interested in anything but quenching the public’s thirst for revenge.

    Revenge? I don't think the public is looking for "revenge" at all; I believe they're seeking "justice."

    Devon was called out to a BLM protester holding up a sign at an intersection who was being harassed by some guy in a MAGA cap.

    Those MAGAts are not all too interested in the First Amendment rights of others.

    The guy was holding a sign that was supposed to inform anyone who saw it that she was a paid protester who was being paid by the Left.

    Ah, yes... the fabled "Soros paycheck" that only exists in the gullible minds of the right-wing conspiracy theory dipshits and rubes.

    ...only instead of spelling out the word “Left”, the sign used an arrow pointing towards the sign holders’ left. But for anyone reading it, it looked like the arrow was pointing RIGHT... not left.

    Heh.

    When Devon pointed that out, the guy got real flustered and just left in a huff...saying it wasn’t his screw up; it was his wife’s mistake because she had made the sign for him! (Which only made Devon and the woman laugh at him more.)

    Spew alert!

    So his wife's first mistake was marrying his ignorant ass, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say his wife knew exactly what she was doing when she sent him out there with that sign because she knew for a fact that he was too damn dumb to ever think to have the presence of mind to actually read the thing that he was holding up.

    MAGAt: Make me up a sign fer holding.
    Wife: Here's your sign!

    *ROTFLMAO*

    XOXOXOXO :)

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:
  90. [90] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    So when he did stop struggling, I am guessing he was either rendered unconscious or deceased... at which point, according to MPD procedure, the use of physical force was no longer required... if it ever was required since Mr. Floyd was unarmed, already rear-handcuffed, and prone on the pavement while awaiting an ambulance!

    Just because the officers may have been in physical contact with Floyd does not mean that they were exerting any physical pressure on him. I know you said not to answer this, “So who could he have harmed with his hands already rear-cuffed and no firearm, Russ?” , but I think it needs to be answered. He could have harmed HIMSELF!

    They believed he was on drugs. He had chosen to physically challenge multiple officers despite having his hands cuffed behind his back. His judgement and concern for his own well-being was questionable at best. Preventing him from having the freedom of movement to really slam his head into a wall or the asphalt would be in Floyd’s best interest.

    And the officers were most likely focused on the very angry crowd that was surrounding them and growing in numbers. The officers were having to be concerned for their own and for Floyd’s immediate safety from the crowd.

    Devon told me that the prosecutor’s charging document for Chauvin states that it was after Floyd was walked over in front of the store and the employee identified him as being the man who had tried passing the fake $20 that the officer’s informed Floyd that he was under arrest. It was at this time that Floyd told the officers that he was claustrophobic and that he would not get in the back of the police cruiser. When they insisted, Floyd physically resisted and the officers took him to the ground. Again, I am just telling you what he told me.

    Well, likely because their boss saw the video available to anyone with an Internet connection and a keyboard and had access to the police report wherein details were fabricated that didn't match actual events captured for all posterity by multiple video devices.

    This brings me to the point where I know what I am going say could result in swearing from you, but I only ask that you consider what I am saying. Just because the officers’ report does not match everything in the video, that does not mean the officer was lying. You are only considering/accepting the reality from the perspective of the camera’s point of view.

    The officer kneeling next to/own Floyd’s back has a very different view than the camera gives you. He does not see Floyd’s face. He is paying attention to the crowd looking for potential trouble and listening to their screams.

    The officer at Floyd’s feet definitely has a different view of the events taking place. Again, he’s hearing the crowd screaming that he is killing Floyd, but he knows that none of them are using holds that are cutting off Floyd’s ability to breathe... especially since Floyd is able to protest so loudly. His report may not match much of what the video’s perspective shows, but that does not mean he is lying or is wrong.

    The police, more than anyone, understand that perspective influences how we interpret what we witness...and that ten people can all view the same event and yet they are more likely to offer ten different versions than they are to agree on all aspects of what they witnessed.

    I think it was around ten years ago that two officers were called to the house of an elderly woman who had a large black man, covered in blood, screaming incoherently and attempting to break in to her home. The officers pull up and the man starts moving towards them, still yelling garbled words/sounds at them, and who ignores all of their commands to stop where he was and to drop to his knees. After multiple attempts to get him to stop coming any closer to them and warning they were going to shoot unless he complied, they opened fire and killed him.

    The officers viewed him as a potential threat to the woman whose house he tried to get into as well as a threat to them when he refused to obey lawful commands. The law justified their actions.

    It was only later that they learned that the man was covered in his own blood, having been involved in a very nasty car crash into a wooded area out of view and off of the highway he had been traveling on. He had experienced major head trauma, and it is unlikely that he could properly communicate or understand anything that the officers said. He was in need of help but could not communicate that he was not a threat to those he contacted.

    How we view the officers’ actions differs greatly based on what our perspective of the situation is. The public does not look at events through the eyes of the police; and unfortunately, most police can look at events through the eyes of the public, but they don’t because it is so negative.

    I do not think there will be peace until both sides can come to an agreement on what reality we are going to accept as the official story. I have come to accept that speaking to my liberal friends regarding the police is reminiscent of talking to my conservative friends about illegal immigrants — it will end with me having a splitting headache and realizing just how powerful “fear/anger” are at influencing our take on reality.

    I hope this at least helps you understand why I view things the way that I do.

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    90

    Just because the officers may have been in physical contact with Floyd does not mean that they were exerting any physical pressure on him.

    "May have been in physical contact"? Russ, would it kill you to concede the fact that the officers were definitely in physical contact with Floyd? Because the autopsy and the video evidence from multiple sources document the physical contact nine ways to Sunday, and far as "exerting any physical pressure," the very definitions of "neck restraints" in MPD procedure includes the word "pressure":

    The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

    Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)

    Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

    So physical pressure was involved. Furthermore, this is also made clear in the autopsy findings.

    I know you said not to answer this, “So who could he have harmed with his hands already rear-cuffed and no firearm, Russ?” , but I think it needs to be answered. He could have harmed HIMSELF!

    Well then, it's a good thing those three officers were there to apply neck as well as body pressure to him so he wouldn't kill himself... particularly after he ceased to move and they remained on him for almost 3 more minutes. /sarcasm off

    In Officer Lane's defense, he did try multiple times to get Chauvin to follow procedure, whereupon he was refused multiple times.

    They believed he was on drugs. He had chosen to physically challenge multiple officers despite having his hands cuffed behind his back.

    Haven't seen any evidence yet that confirms this, but when he stopped moving would have been a good time to reassess the use of neck restraints, would it not?

    His judgement and concern for his own well-being was questionable at best.

    Floyd said his knee hurt. He said his stomach hurt. He said his neck hurt, and he said he couldn't breathe multiple times. Still, the officer grinds his neck multiple times. He ceases to move and still the officer continues to pin him down.

    Have you watched the video evidence? I need an answer to that.

    Preventing him from having the freedom of movement to really slam his head into a wall or the asphalt would be in Floyd’s best interest.

    The training officer clearly wasn't concerned with "Floyd's best interest."

    And the officers were most likely focused on the very angry crowd that was surrounding them and growing in numbers. The officers were having to be concerned for their own and for Floyd’s immediate safety from the crowd.

    The training officer clearly wasn't concerned with Floyd's safety "from the crowd" who was begging him to let his knee off Floyd so he could breathe, particularly for the nearly 4 minutes after Floyd was no longer moving and by MPD definition the use of neck restraints was no longer warranted: "He is not even resisting arrest right now, bro... He's not responsive right now, bro."

    Devon told me that the prosecutor’s charging document for Chauvin states that it was after Floyd was walked over in front of the store and the employee identified him as being the man who had tried passing the fake $20 that the officer’s informed Floyd that he was under arrest. It was at this time that Floyd told the officers that he was claustrophobic and that he would not get in the back of the police cruiser. When they insisted, Floyd physically resisted and the officers took him to the ground. Again, I am just telling you what he told me.

    No worries, I already posted the original charge. Here is the amended charge nor the amended charge I posted below:

    https://www.startribune.com/read-the-amended-charges-against-ex-minneapolis-officer-derek-chauvin/570991071/

    Floyd was informed he was under arrest shortly after he was cuffed by Lane and before he was walked to the front of the store.

    This brings me to the point where I know what I am going say could result in swearing from you, but I only ask that you consider what I am saying.

    Swearing already! ___________ <--- insert expletive here

    Just because the officers’ report does not match everything in the video, that does not mean the officer was lying. You are only considering/accepting the reality from the perspective of the camera’s point of view.

    Well, I'm not "only" accepting the reality from the perspective of the camera's point of view, but video evidence doesn't lie whereas eyewitness testimony usually actually is faulty. Why would I swear about "Eyewitness Testimony 101"?

    The officer at Floyd’s feet definitely has a different view of the events taking place. Again, he’s hearing the crowd screaming that he is killing Floyd, but he knows that none of them are using holds that are cutting off Floyd’s ability to breathe... especially since Floyd is able to protest so loudly.

    Actually, the officer at Floyd's feet was the rookie Officer Lane who actually stated he was holding Floyd's feet so he couldn't kick. He's also the officer who attempted to change the behavior of Chauvin multiple times after Floyd was no longer moving... as per MPD policy to "intervene" we already discussed.

    The police, more than anyone, understand that perspective influences how we interpret what we witness...and that ten people can all view the same event and yet they are more likely to offer ten different versions than they are to agree on all aspects of what they witnessed.

    You're preaching to the choir; however, what do we all now know from multiple angles of video evidence?

    I hope this at least helps you understand why I view things the way that I do.

    I already understand where you're coming from; you're one of the good ones, Russ. :)

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yes, okay... some of that doesn't make sense! How it posted before I was ready is a mystery to me.

    What I was trying to say is that you should read the amended charge directly because I didn't remember it the same way Devon did. I didn't reread it, though, just posted a link to it.

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    ”May have been in physical contact"? Russ, would it kill you to concede the fact that the officers were definitely in physical contact with Floyd?

    Sorry, I did not mean that to sound as if I did not think that the officer’s were in physical contact with Floyd. I was just trying to point out that their being in physical contact with Floyd does not mean that they were applying physical pressure on Floyd the entire time they were in physical contact with him.

    As for the agency’s definitions of neck restraints, are you under the impression that the knee to the neck is what resulted in Floyd going unconscious? The unconscious neck restraint is not performed using an officer’s legs, it is the officer’s arms pressing/massaging the carotid artery that leads to the subject going unconscious...at which point all pressure on the artery is stopped.

    I am fairly certain that Floyd passed out due to being in cardiopulmonary arrest (which I am just going to refer to as “v-fib” for short from now on). Being in v-fib causes difficulty breathing and ceasing to breathe in patients. Difficulty breathing does not cause v-fib.

    Yes, I have watched the entire videos of Floyd’s death. Again, I am only offering possible explanations as to Chauvin’s actions that would possibly justify them in the eyes of the law. Personal opinion ...Chauvin’s dismissal of Floyd’s pleas to help him are too unforgivable, evil, callous and degrading for the public to ever accept any possible justification for his actions — regardless of how plausible they may be.

    Bottom line: Chauvin is the only one who can explain the thinking behind his actions that day.

    Devon brought up a point that I had not considered... having the crowd yelling at (and filming) Chauvin that he was hurting Floyd may have actually caused Chauvin to double down on the belief that he could not be hurting Floyd because he knew that he was using a non-lethal hold that does not interfere with breathing. Moving off of his neck at that point would send the message that Chauvin was admitting that the public was correct and knew more about proper policing than he did. If Chauvin hadn’t felt he was having to defend his policing, he might have been much more open to Lane’s request to roll Floyd on his side or to let him sit up. Yes, I know that is f’d up! Medics were on their way; so Floyd could wait where he was until they arrived.

    As for my comments on what the video shows...let me put it another way. During the Michael Brown case, there was a video that came out showing (1)Brown running from the officer, (2)stopping, and then (3)turning around slowly (4)as both his arms start to rise, (5)he takes one step forward and (6)is shot by Officer Wilson. Now imagine a stick figure drawn to represent each numbered action.

    The video caused an uproar that angered the general public and led to the chant, “Hands up, don’t shoot!” becoming a BLM rallying cry.

    The video was shot by someone across the street from where Brown was stopped by Officer Wilson. They only realized something was going down when they heard the sound of a gun being fired, and started filming when they say Brown struggling with Wilson. They believed (1)Brown was running from the Officer when he was ordered to stop, which Brown did(2). (3)Brown turned around, (4)started to put his hands up to signal he was surrendering, and (5)was dropping to his knees when (6) the officer shot him. This became the story as reported by the media regarding the event.

    There were witnesses that the police found who had seen the entire event from when Officer Wilson pulled up to Brown. They reported Brown kicked the officer’s door to prevent him from getting out of the vehicle, and then leaned into the driver’s window and appeared to be fighting with the officer. Then they heard a shot fired and saw Brown pull back from the window. They say (1)Brown ran from the officer who ordered him to stop. (2)Brown came to a stop, but them (3) turned back towards the officer and (4)(5)started charging towards the officer like he was going to attack him again when (6) the officer shot and killed Brown.

    If you took stick figured drawings for each version of what the witnesses say that they saw, you’d find that both groups witnessed the same physical action taking place despite sounding so different. If you laid out all of the drawings in order, you’d see that they were reporting seeing the same movements and it was their interpretations of what those movements represented that were different.

    How they interpreted what they were seeing was determined by whether they had viewed the confrontation prior to hearing the gunshot go off. Those that had viewed the event from the start believed Brown was moving to attack the officer when he was killed. Those that only saw the video which picks up after the shot was fired and starts off showing Brown running away from the officer thought Brown was surrendering and placing his hands up and dropping to his knees when he was killed. The video showed both groups witnessed the same event, only their perspectives led to very different testimony being offered.

    A snapshot of a standing person moving one leg forward so they can drop to their knees with both of their arms almost perpendicular to their body on their way all the way up to place their hands above their heads looks identical to a standing person starting to charge his victim with one leg moving forward and his arms rising perpendicular to the body to allow him to grab hold of his opponent! The same video was offered as proof by both sides that their side was correct even though they were two vastly different stories.

    Most people see an officer applying pressure to Floyd’s neck for over 8-9 minutes, choking him until he dies. I can see an officer with his knee on Floyd’s neck who only applies pressure if Floyd struggles to get up.

    Most people see an officer ignoring pleas that he is killing the man under him. I can see an officer who is confident that his knee to Floyd’s neck is not cutting off Floyd’s breathing as Floyd’s screams demonstrate his ability to pass air thru his lungs; but an officer who fails to consider that Floyd could be experiencing an actual medical emergency (v-fib).

    Cases like Floyd’s and Eric Gardner’s are much tougher to defend than say an officer involved shooting death....even though technically they should be much easier! The officers never used deadly force against the subject, yet they died. These are freak deaths that the police had no fault in causing; they were simply doing their jobs. But the videos of the subjects screaming that the officer’s are killing them being ignored by the police because they know that they are not killing them are almost impossible to defend when that person winds up dead.

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    93

    Great post!

    Devon brought up a point that I had not considered... having the crowd yelling at (and filming) Chauvin that he was hurting Floyd may have actually caused Chauvin to double down on the belief that he could not be hurting Floyd because he knew that he was using a non-lethal hold that does not interfere with breathing.

    OMG! Finally! This is literally what I've been waiting to hear for days. I had that exact impression from Day 1 when I saw the video evidence from multiple sources. I even dropped hints about the officer's body language and him threatening the bystanders with mace. His attention was elsewhere than Mr. Floyd, and it didn't help the situation that his partner was doing a piss-poor job of crowd control. Chauvin definitely let his emotions get the best of him, didn't he, though? The rookies giving him suggestions per MPD procedure along with the crowd -- the bystander who said he had academy training (and you could tell he had at least some minimum training by his language). The anger in his face on multiple occasions. The hands in and out of his pockets.

    Now we're on the same page... literally on the same page.

    Moving off of his neck at that point would send the message that Chauvin was admitting that the public was correct and knew more about proper policing than he did.

    Yes, sir... exactly that... along with the rookie Officer Lane at Floyd's feet who followed MPD procedure multiple times and was overruled.

    If Chauvin hadn’t felt he was having to defend his policing, he might have been much more open to Lane’s request to roll Floyd on his side or to let him sit up.

    Yes, yes, yes.

    Yes, I know that is f’d up! Medics were on their way; so Floyd could wait where he was until they arrived.

    Almost 9 minutes being held down unable to breathe with dang near 3 minutes being held after he ceased to move... definitely in violation of MPD policy when Floyd was no longer actively resisting.

    As I said right out of the gate, I believe they'll easily flip Lane who attempted to follow procedure. What was he supposed to do, throw his training officer off Floyd? *shakes head*

    Most people see an officer applying pressure to Floyd’s neck for over 8-9 minutes, choking him until he dies. I can see an officer with his knee on Floyd’s neck who only applies pressure if Floyd struggles to get up.

    You do remember one of the officers (not Chauvin) actually telling Floyd multiple times (paraphrasing) to "get up and get in the car"?... repeatedly... and Floyd said, "I will," and then when he makes a slight move, he is pressured right back down by the training officer, Chauvin. This is nonsensical behavior toward a person that is UTI.

    Okay... well, nice "talk." If you disagree with my observations, then you definitely don't want to hear that the 911 dispatcher found enough out of the ordinary to report it:

    The 911 dispatcher called the police sergeant while watching real-time footage of the May 25 incident where Floyd died in police custody.

    “You can call me a snitch if you want to, but we have the cameras up for 320’s call,” the dispatcher said. “They must have already started moving him… I don’t know if they had to use force or not, but they got something out of the back of the squad, and all of them sat on this man, so I don’t know if they needed you or not, but they haven’t said anything to me yet.”

    The sergeant said he was unaware of the incident.

    “Yeah, they haven’t said anything. Must have been just a takedown, which doesn’t count, but I’ll find out,” the sergeant replied.

    “No problem, we don’t get to ever see it, so when we see it, we’re just like ‘whoa, well, that looks a little different’,” the dispatcher said.

    https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/06/15/you-can-call-me-a-snitch-if-you-want-concerned-911-dispatcher-called-mpd-sergeant-during-george-floyds-arrest/

    "All of them sat on this man."

    And, Russ, did you see the Senate hearing? I about fell out of my chair when I heard what the Republicans had to say... because I'm not used to watching a hearing and listening to Trumplicans who agree with me. Weird.

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    You do remember one of the officers (not Chauvin) actually telling Floyd multiple times (paraphrasing) to "get up and get in the car"?... repeatedly... and Floyd said, "I will," and then when he makes a slight move, he is pressured right back down by the training officer, Chauvin. This is nonsensical behavior toward a person that is UTI.

    You will notice that I said that, “I CAN see an officer with his knee on Floyd’s neck who only applies pressure if Floyd struggles to get up.”(Emphasis added). I cannot explain why Chauvin chose to keep Floyd face down, but I also cannot rule out that he had a legitimate reason for doing so. Personally, I cannot understand why you would put someone who claims to be claustrophobic in that position on the ground for so long. But that does not mean that there might be a legit answer...Floyd was a big strong man and if they thought he was gonna try to continue resisting if they got off of him, then it makes sense to stay on him until the medics arrived. Again, that is obviously for the court/jury to decide.

    As for the dispatcher’s story, my only comment is that I am jealous that they have real time cameras that they have control of in their dispatch center. I am not sure if they were using cameras on light poles or if they can see body-cam footage in real time (which would be extra cool), but either way...that rocks! As for what that story means... I don’t know if the officers were supposed to call for a supervisor if they have a use of force event and failed to do so or what, but the story seems meant to imply that the officers were doing something much worse than what the dispatcher was reporting them to their supervisor for. I dunno.

    I did not see the Senate hearings. Not sure how anyone who was involved in this event could have been involved with the criminal. I did see some clips of Floyd’s brother speaking...very powerful speaker...his pain was palpable.

  96. [96] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    95

    You will notice that I said that, “I CAN see an officer with his knee on Floyd’s neck who only applies pressure if Floyd struggles to get up.”(Emphasis added).

    Yes, of course. I was just wondering what you thought about that one officer sort of taunting Floyd (a man under the influence) to get up while he was being restrained by multiple officers.

    I cannot explain why Chauvin chose to keep Floyd face down, but I also cannot rule out that he had a legitimate reason for doing so.

    Me neither, but I do think he lost his legitimate reason when Floyd was not resisting by virtue of him not moving and therefore not actively resisting. Definitely going to need to hear all the evidence from all of the officers at the scene to know for sure, though... why one officer felt the need and did intervene twice, while the other stayed the course both times.

    Personally, I cannot understand why you would put someone who claims to be claustrophobic in that position on the ground for so long.

    Me neither. His hands were cuffed, and he had no firearm so he wasn't any kind of threat that I could see under those circumstances. I would have sat him up and explained to him that the ambulance was on its way, and he was going to be just fine. He was already told he was under arrest. What's the worst he could do to me under the influence and rear-cuffed with no firearm? Head butt me?
    Floyd: Which one are you?
    Me: The one in the middle. ;)

    But that does not mean that there might be a legit answer...

    Of course.

    Good talk! :)

Comments for this article are closed.