Derek Chauvin Trial

[jitter77]

Even if GF would have died from an over dose we have no way of knowing that. Paramedics were on the scene and may have been able to save him. Chauvin did many things wrong and its hard to disagree with the jury. My only issue is people acting like GF was a saint. He is a career criminal stop treating him like he is some poor innocent soul

 

[Steeler Pride]

So you're comfortable with police officers on the streets of America rounding up and executing some 2M opiod users around the country?

More hyperbole and fear mongering...imagine that. If the victim didn't resist arrest he would still be alive today. That is the common theme that seems to escape the lunatics on the left. Personal responsibility and accountability...the odds of you dying if you are not breaking the law and/or comply with LEO commands are almost 0. But again, in your little world, everyone is a victim and there is no such thing as personal responsibility.

 

[IndySteel]

Have you seen the Ma-Khia Bryant bodycam video out of Columbus? So now apparently a police officer cannot shoot someone even if they are in the act of stabbing someone else.

I guess we don't care about the life of the girl who was about to be stabbed?

What is wrong with the George Floyd policing act? The most glaring example is ending qualified immunity. Subjecting indivdual officers to harassing lawsuits every time someone doesn't like the outcome of a police action, even if the officer was acting in good faith. So what happens when an officer in this Columbus situation comes upon someone in the act of stabbing someone? If they shoot they will be sued. If they don't shoot and the girl gets stabbed to death they will be sued.

Would literally be the end of policing.

I saw it. Yeah, she was 15 but she was a heavyweight with a knife. The cop saved the other girl's life. Here's what's going to end up happening soon:

In the near future – cop gets call from dispatch about incident – cop steps on gas and turns on lights and siren – cop asks dispatch, are any black people involved, dispatch responds , yes – cop steps off gas, turns off lights and siren.

If you’re a police officer just stop responding to the black community. Let them stab and kill each other. Riots solved.

 

[Steeler Pride]

Let them stab and kill each other. Riots solved.

No, then they will riot because they are not being given "equity" by the po-po.

 

[steel dino]

I think the focus from hereon shouldn't be on this one case. It's great they finally got it right, and a bad cop was found to be guilty of murdering an innocent man.

The bigger picture is all the hard work that's still ahead, to continue implementing police reform measures, passing legislation, eroding the clout & power of police unions, expanding community outreach programs. The fight for civil rights and a just & fair justice system must go on.

In Congress, there should be a bipartisan effort to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, without further ado.

The legislation, described as expansive, would:

• Grant power to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to issue subpoenas to police departments as part of "pattern or practice" investigations into whether there has been a "pattern and practice" of bias or misconduct by the department[8]
• Provide grants to state attorneys general to "create an independent process to investigate misconduct or excessive use of force" by police forces[9]
• Establish a federal registry of police misconduct complaints and disciplinary actions[9]
• Enhance accountability for police officers who commit misconduct, by restricting the application of the qualified immunity doctrine for local and state officers,[8][10] and by changing the mens rea (intent) element of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (the federal criminal offense of "deprivation of rights under color of law," which has been used to prosecute police for misconduct) from "willfully" to "knowingly or with reckless disregard"[11]
• Require federal uniformed police officers to have body-worn cameras[9][4]
• Require marked federal police vehicles to be equipped with dashboard cameras.[9]
• Require state and local law enforcement agencies that receive federal funding to "ensure" the use of body-worn and dashboard cameras.[4]
• Restrict the transfer of military equipment to police[9] (see 1033 program, militarization of police)
• Require state and local law enforcement agencies that receive federal funding to adopt anti-discrimination policies and training programs, including those targeted at fighting racial profiling[4]
• Prohibit federal police officers from using chokeholds or other carotid holds (which led to the death of Eric Garner), and require state and local law enforcement agencies that receive federal funding to adopt the same prohibition[4]
• Prohibit the issuance of no-knock warrants (warrants that allow police to conduct a raid without knocking or announcing themselves) in federal drug investigations, and provide incentives to the states to enact a similar prohibition.[4]
• Change the threshold for the permissible use of force by federal law enforcement officers from "reasonableness" to only when "necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury."[4]
• Mandate that federal officers use deadly force only as a last resort and that de-escalation be attempted, and condition federal funding to state and local law enforcement agencies on the adoption of the same policy.[4]

What is there not to like? These are all rational measures that encourage transparency and help ensure the safety and well-being of all citizens, who police officers are sworn to protect.

Write to your Congressman or woman now, and tell them to throw their full support behind this.

You want to keep people off the streets from protesting police brutality? End police brutality. Fix some basic issues in the justice system. No law-abiding citizen should have to live in constant fear of an overzealous police force.

Hello Tibs--

I am always for continuous improvement (reforms) if done correctly for any reason...especially in regards to our making our country better.

With that said---
I like some of the bullet points, others need further clarification, and a couple I'm not sold on...
Overall, it feels more like punishing a few at the expense of mostly outstanding law enforcement agencies/personnel in this country, and making the communities they serve less safe against criminal actors..

I believe reforms can be value added if applied with some common sense and in the light of benefitting all of society and not just some.....especially those who have chosen not be good solid citizens...

We should also look to include benefits and/or incentives for law enforcement agencies/departments that are compliant with any existing or new regulations set forth..

The one item that I believe would be beneficial is to develop a task force to look at ways to increase minority involvement/teaming and/or minorities enlisting in their local communities law enforcement agencies. Increase starting pay would help here maybe?

Also to consider, is that if this country is going to have Police reforms we cannot Defund the Police at the same time...you actually would need more monies to make these systemic changes work..

The last thing I would suggest is not use George Floyd's name for any reform bills....and to be clear, I felt that justice was served in his case yesterday.
However, lets remember the reason Mr. Floyd was in this mess in the first place and not make a martyr out of criminals in this country anymore than we have already done so.

 

[Steeler Pride]

Overall, it feels more like punishing a few at the expense of...

LMAO, that statement should be the slogan for the Democrat Platform. Pretty much applies to every single topic on their platform. Pipeline, Gun Control, Police, Education....etc.

 

[Tibs]

Hello Tibs--

I am always for continuous improvement (reforms) if done correctly for any reason...especially in regards to our making our country better.

With that said---
I like some of the bullet points, others need further clarification, and a couple I'm not sold on...
Overall, it feels more like punishing a few at the expense of mostly outstanding law enforcement agencies/personnel in this country, and making the communities they serve less safe against criminal actors..

I believe reforms can be value added if applied with some common sense and in the light of benefitting all of society and not just some.....especially those who have chosen not be good solid citizens...

We should also look to include benefits and/or incentives for law enforcement agencies/departments that are compliant with any existing or new regulations set forth..

The one item that I believe would be beneficial is to develop a task force to look at ways to increase minority involvement/teaming and/or minorities enlisting in their local communities law enforcement agencies. Increase starting pay would help here maybe?

Also to consider, is that if this country is going to have Police reforms we cannot Defund the Police at the same time...you actually would need more monies to make these systemic changes work..

The last thing I would suggest is not use George Floyd's name for any reform bills....and to be clear, I felt that justice was served in his case yesterday.
However, lets remember the reason Mr. Floyd was in this mess in the first place and not make a martyr out of criminals in this country anymore than we have already done so.

Nice post, Dino, you make some valid points. I too would have named the bill something else, but that's a moot point at this stage.

 

[oneforthebus]

Nice post, Dino, you make some valid points. I too would have named the bill something else, but that's a moot point at this stage.

So do you think a world where cops can be sued even when there is no evidence of bad faith or incompetence is a good thing?

In what circumstances can a police officer use deadly force, since apparently when someone is in the actual act of stabbing someone else doesn't qualify any more?

 

[Tibs]

So do you think a world where cops can be sued even when there is no evidence of bad faith or incompetence is a good thing?

Where do you see in the bill that 'cops can be sued even when there is no evidence of bad faith or incompetence?"

 

[IndySteel]

 

[oneforthebus]

Where do you see in the bill that 'cops can be sued even when there is no evidence of bad faith or incompetence?"

That's what eliminating qualified immunity means.

Qualified immunity does not mean complete immunity. It means immunity from suit over decisions made in good faith and without gross negligence or incompetence. So without it basically any action by an officer that someone doesn't like opens him up to having to defend himself from a lawsuit.

Any idea how much that costs?

 

[deljzc]

Our panic porn media is loving every minute of this "historic event" and pandering to every known demographic trying to get clicks.

It's ugly what this has all turned into.

I think he was guilty of manslaughter. I think he'll have a chance at appeal on 2nd and 3rd degree murder chargers, but we'll see how it ends up. I'm glad he is getting prison time because I think what he did warrants that. And even with manslaughter, I think it should be a significant amount of jail time. 5 years. And he will forever be a felon. In my world, that means losing both your right to vote and your right to bare arms. I don't think those are trivial losses.

There are some very arrogant and cocky police out there that think they are above the law. And many police feel they have a long leash of "excess" when it comes to how they deal with the public. I have never been a police "proponent". But I also understand that expecting perfection is not reasonable. And finding a pool of candidates that WANT to be police officers is difficult. And that pool has some very big flaws in it.

We must always balance a realistic expectation of police interaction with the public. I think the pendulum is swinging to an unrealistic and unattainable result. I think it is very similar to how the world treats referees in sports now that we have millions of cameras and slow-mos. Now that police are on video, our expectations of perfection become distorted (just like what we expect from referees).

Unfortunately, this is not sports, but real life and death circumstances. And I expect police will AVOID difficult interactions with the public rather than jump into the fray when needed. And that will not be a necessarily better result for public safety and crime.

 

[Steeler Pride]

That's what eliminating qualified immunity means.

Qualified immunity does not mean complete immunity. It means immunity from suit over decisions made in good faith and without gross negligence or incompetence. So without it basically any action by an officer that someone doesn't like opens him up to having to defend himself from a lawsuit.

Any idea how much that costs?

Every cop would have to carry E&O Insurance or they would be stupid to remain in law enforcement. The cost of a 20+ million dollar policy would be more in premiums than most cops make in a year. So much for law enforcement.

 

[IndySteel]

No, then they will riot because they are not being given "equity" by the po-po.

Probably, but it doesn't seem to bother them in Chicago where they kill each other in massive shooting sprees every weekend.

 

[Steeler Pride]

Probably, but it doesn't seem to bother them in Chicago where they kill each other in massive shooting sprees every weekend.

Black on Black crime is meaningless to BLM.

 

[IndySteel]

Black on Black crime is meaningless to BLM.

So is doing anything positive to help the black community.

 

[steel dino]

That's what eliminating qualified immunity means.

Qualified immunity does not mean complete immunity. It means immunity from suit over decisions made in good faith and without gross negligence or incompetence. So without it basically any action by an officer that someone doesn't like opens him up to having to defend himself from a lawsuit.

Any idea how much that costs?

I'm aligned on that onefor....
That is one of the items that I didn't agree with in that proposal.

 

[deljzc]

If qualified immunity goes away, there will have to be some sort of agreement of employment to cover the costs of insurance needed to cover those added expenses. That means it will all come out of taxpayers pockets.

Any thought that getting rid of qualifying immunity will somehow impact actual policemen pay is naïve and stupid. The people paying off the lawyers and "victims" will be state and local governments. And that means taxpayers.

 

[Tibs]

That's what eliminating qualified immunity means. Qualified immunity does not mean complete immunity. It means immunity from suit over decisions made in good faith and without gross negligence or incompetence. So without it basically any action by an officer that someone doesn't like opens him up to having to defend himself from a lawsuit. Any idea how much that costs?

OFTB, there is nothing there about eliminating qualified immunity, but a suggestion to change/modify it. We'd have to see the actual wording in the legislation to find out what means. From what I can tell, it would lower the threshold somewhat of what the requirements are to proceed with a case.

The bill contains one proposal long sought by civil rights advocates. It would change “qualified immunity,” the legal doctrine that shields officers from lawsuits, by lowering the bar for plaintiffs to sue officers for alleged civil rights violations.

I highly doubt it would play out, as you suggest, that 'cops can be sued even when there is no evidence of bad faith or incompetence."

If it did, I too would be staunchly against such a measure.

 

[oneforthebus]

OFTB, there is nothing there about eliminating qualified immunity, but a suggestion to change/modify it. We'd have to see the actual wording in the legislation to find out what means. From what I can tell, it would lower the threshold somewhat of what the requirements are to proceed with a case.



I highly doubt it would play out, as you suggest, that 'cops can be sued even when there is no evidence of bad faith or incompetence."

If it did, I too would be staunchly against such a measure.

There already is no immunity if a law was violated or if the officer acted in bad faith. So what changes could possibly be made except eliminating immunity for routine judgement calls that someone disagrees with?

 

[Tibs]

There already is no immunity if a law was violated or if the officer acted in bad faith. So what changes could possibly be made except eliminating immunity for routine judgement calls that someone disagrees with?

I don't know. Again, I'd be curious to see what the exact wording is of that provision in the bill. Since it got sent up to the Senate from the House, they can mark it up and modify it as needed, to garner bipartisan support. I imagine this specific item will be vetted and discussed, or even scratched from the bill altogether, if there's no agreement on it.

Thanks for your input on this.

 

[Steeltime]

Even if GF would have died from an over dose we have no way of knowing that.

Want to know something that is most definitely NOT hypothetical?

You are a welcher. You make a bet, lose and don't pay. Your favorite jelly?

 

[steel dino]

Want to know something that is most definitely NOT hypothetical?

You are a welcher. You make a bet, lose and don't pay. Your favorite jelly?

Welcher is a prejudicial term and could be considered racist to some Caucasians, and should not be used in any context.

Signed people from Wales.

 

[Superman]

imagine for a moment...

Chauvin turned and calmly allowed himself to be cuffed and taken away. Imagine if George had done that.

we'd not have this thread.

 

[DBS1970]

Qualified immunity doesn’t need to end but it does need to be changed. Rather than having taxpayers pay the cost you require police officers to be bonded just like truck drivers are bonded. Then you cap the Liability payouts at $50,000 and end the ghetto lottery