Minnesota Attorney General Kieth Ellison will take over the criminal investigation. Damn good call from Gov. Walz. I would expect Chauvin to be up-charged and the other three cops to be formally charged with something.
Yes, this is a great move, and one demanded by George Floyd's family and the demonstrators.
I also hope this means that the other three will be charged, too. I had only very slim hopes that Freeman would also charge them, but it's not a sure thing that Ellison will, although the odds are a little better.
I'm sure the local GOP assholes will find something horrifying to say about this, whatever Ellison does.
I wonder if the tweet he sent out (see page 1 of this thread) will come back to haunt him.
When Ellison briefly spoke last night, he made a point to say that under Minnesota law, it's really tough to convict an officer.
But fuck, if he's not sent to prison, the blood that will spill in the streets here and elsewhere will be like nothing that's ever been seen before in this country.
I’ve read this elsewhere but don’t understand.
Does this mean the ‘assault’ laws in Minnesota don’t apply to every individual?
I. E . Some people (cops) are outside of the law.
Or are their statutory defences for Police.
Or tough to convict because of the jury system. I’d have thought the people who would make up the jury are already speaking.
101, it's because cops are given a greater, a much greater, benefit of the doubt.
It means they can lawfully kill you if they merely perceive you as a treat, even if you weren't a threat and when they judged you as a (mistaken) threat, they weren't doing so by a "reasonable" standard, which I -- a non-cop -- would be judged by.
The reasoning is that cops have to make split-second decisions and are generally assumed to be trying to do the right thing.
(BTW, I've commented under that article using my IRL name, Tim Walker.)
Thanks Spiff.
Sounds like the English common law of self defence, what is in the mind of the person who commits the act not the intention of the person attacked e.g. if you fear for your life (think attacker is armed etc) it is justified even if it turns out person wasn’t going to kill you or was unarmed.
In this case I’d suggest hard to argue that defence for multiple reasons but who knows???
Ijeoma Oluo
@IjeomaOluo
The beauty of anti-racism is that you don't have to pretend to be free of racism to be an anti-racist. Anti-racism is the commitment to fight racism wherever you find it, including in yourself. And it's the only way forward.
...it's because cops are given a greater, a much greater, benefit of the doubt.
It means they can lawfully kill you if they merely perceive you as a treat, even if you weren't a threat and when they judged you as a (mistaken) threat, they weren't doing so by a "reasonable" standard, which I -- a non-cop -- would be judged by.
The reasoning is that cops have to make split-second decisions and are generally assumed to be trying to do the right thing.
That's why it's tough to send them to jail.
I'll add that policing in the States have become increasingly militant in my lifetime. After 9/11 there was so much public money pumped into 'security' and police forces have been equipped with military equipment, trained in military tactics, and staffed by our mentally damaged veterans. It's a shitty situation.
Yeah this is a big part of the problem, the militarization of the police.
When you dress, equip and train a cop to be a soldier and perhaps even recruit from their ranks you have soldiers. What are soldiers traditionally used for and trained to do?
...it's because cops are given a greater, a much greater, benefit of the doubt.
It means they can lawfully kill you if they merely perceive you as a treat, even if you weren't a threat and when they judged you as a (mistaken) threat, they weren't doing so by a "reasonable" standard, which I -- a non-cop -- would be judged by.
The reasoning is that cops have to make split-second decisions and are generally assumed to be trying to do the right thing.
That's why it's tough to send them to jail.
I'll add that policing in the States have become increasingly militant in my lifetime. After 9/11 there was so much public money pumped into 'security' and police forces have been equipped with military equipment, trained in military tactics, and staffed by our mentally damaged veterans. It's a shitty situation.
Yeah this is a big part of the problem, the militarization of the police.
When you dress, equip and train a cop to be a soldier and perhaps even recruit from their ranks you have soldiers. What are soldiers traditionally used for and trained to do?
It reflects and encourages a switch in mentality. A traditional police officer sees him/herself as a part of the community, moving about comfortably. The soldier cop treats the terrain as enemy territory, others as potential enemies. Strip cops of the body armour and weaponry and you bring them back down to the level of citizen.
"Ain't no party like an S Club party!'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
...it's because cops are given a greater, a much greater, benefit of the doubt.
It means they can lawfully kill you if they merely perceive you as a treat, even if you weren't a threat and when they judged you as a (mistaken) threat, they weren't doing so by a "reasonable" standard, which I -- a non-cop -- would be judged by.
The reasoning is that cops have to make split-second decisions and are generally assumed to be trying to do the right thing.
That's why it's tough to send them to jail.
I'll add that policing in the States have become increasingly militant in my lifetime. After 9/11 there was so much public money pumped into 'security' and police forces have been equipped with military equipment, trained in military tactics, and staffed by our mentally damaged veterans. It's a shitty situation.
Yeah this is a big part of the problem, the militarization of the police.
When you dress, equip and train a cop to be a soldier and perhaps even recruit from their ranks you have soldiers. What are soldiers traditionally used for and trained to do?
It reflects and encourages a switch in mentality. A traditional police officer sees him/herself as a part of the community, moving about comfortably. The soldier cop treats the terrain as enemy territory, others as potential enemies. Strip cops of the body armour and weaponry and you bring them back down to the level of citizen.
Others have listed the reasons why this mentality has taken hold, and I'll add one more that is a major factor.
Unlike cops in most other places in the world, cops in the USA must assume that anyone they approach is armed.
And that's the mindset a U.S. cop has when engaging with the public. Obviously, a big factor in how any interactions move forward, what with a cop already on edge due to the real fear that things could escalate to a deadly encounter very rapidly.
Thanks, Second Amendment!
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power
D'you know that you can use it?
Others have listed the reasons why this mentality has taken hold, and I'll add one more that is a major factor.
Unlike cops in most other places in the world, cops in the USA must assume that anyone they approach is armed.
And that's the mindset a U.S. cop has when engaging with the public. Obviously, a big factor in how any interactions move forward, what with a cop already on edge due to the real fear that things could escalate to a deadly encounter very rapidly.
Thanks, Second Amendment!
You're right that this is a significant factor, but doesn't that lean toward legitimizing soldier-cop behaviour? The prevalence of guns in the civil sphere would make cop behaviour sensible. I'm not saying I have anything like a solution, but it that does complicate condemnation of police violence.
"Ain't no party like an S Club party!'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Others have listed the reasons why this mentality has taken hold, and I'll add one more that is a major factor.
Unlike cops in most other places in the world, cops in the USA must assume that anyone they approach is armed.
And that's the mindset a U.S. cop has when engaging with the public. Obviously, a big factor in how any interactions move forward, what with a cop already on edge due to the real fear that things could escalate to a deadly encounter very rapidly.
Thanks, Second Amendment!
You're right that this is a significant factor, but doesn't that lean toward legitimizing soldier-cop behaviour? The prevalence of guns in the civil sphere would make cop behaviour sensible. I'm not saying I have anything like a solution, but it that does complicate condemnation of police violence.
In a way, it does legitimize it, yes.
And that's why community-based policing, with protectors instead of warriors, is the exception rather than the rule here in the States.
And I don't see that changing unless we enact serious gun-control measures at the federal level, which I am desperately hoping for and working toward.
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power
D'you know that you can use it?
they kept us home from work yesterday, but not today. My neighborhood has 2000 people in it, so I leave work in an hour, no idea how I'mm getting home.
We reach the parts other combos cannot reach
We beach the beachheads other armies cannot beach
We speak the tongues other mouths cannot speak
