Pat Robertson, when you’re right, you’re right!
I have repeatedly taken the position that:
“If social justice is to be achieved it won’t be because black and brown people persuaded or convinced conflicted and ambivalent white people of anything at all.
It will be because white people make the case to reluctant and recalcitrant white folks that a just society and more perfect union isn’t about bestowing the benefits of freedom on black and brown people at the expense of white people, it’s about “liberty and justice for all”.”
I have often asked: When, oh when will white people put a stop to this shit?!
Pat Robertson and I may be on common ground here.
Note: According to Google, the feature image photo here is a picture of the Brooklyn Center police service weapons.
Can you tell the difference between the taser and the gun?
koshersalaami
04/16/2021 @ 10:11 am
“May be”?
Alan Milner
04/16/2021 @ 10:53 am
This isn’t a matter of pay or training. Today’s police forces are well-paid compared to previous generations. Today’s sworn officers are well-paid and well trained compared to previous generations of sworn officers, but they are also deeply infiltrated by people who are attracted to careers in law enforcement because they suffer from a variety of emotional complexes that attract them to a profession that affords them unbridled power as a compensating factor for their inferiority complexes. (Of course, Bitey, this does not refer to all officers by any measurement.) The ranks of our police department are also infiltrated with bigoted people who adhere to bizarre belief systems, and many of them are veterans who have been through multiple deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, where they have been acclimated to a “shoot first, don’t bother to ask questions later” mindset.
Bitey
04/16/2021 @ 11:34 am
Alan, that is almost entirely nonsense…in support of nonsense. Police departments pay differently all over the place. The way they are structured and deployed differs quite substantially.
The training of departments differs substantially…everywhere. Some departments do not train at all. Some have agreements with larger departments and send recruits to larger departments to be trained. Some have different philosophies about how to do all sorts of things, from large to small, and establish and maintain different policies based upon differing philosophies. The notion that they are uniform from coast to coast defies a basic understanding of how Americans function doing anything.
And as for the ranks being filled with bigots, the ranks are filled with what the population provides. And that premise is an example of what you decry. It is a bigoted premise. “…are attracted to careers in law enforcement because they suffer from a variety of emotional complexes…”. This is absurd, insulting, and just plain false.
You know, most of the problems that most of you claim about police work actually comes from ignorance and or neglect from other areas of government or society. The press even lacks an understanding when things begin to go right. Lately it is being described as a “crumbling of the blue wall.” That’s a fairy tale. That is not where the change is happening. The difference here started with Keith Ellison charging the officer. Chauvin was excused previously, not by officers, but by other levels of government. He has been held out for correction previously, but the mechanism of government and its priorities let him off the hook. If government had gone further in prosecuting him, all the same elements of the “blue” existed then to function exactly as they have now. The role that Jody Stiger filled this past month is not new. The new thing is the state attorney general handed down a charge. The press calls that “crumbing of the blue wall”, and ignoramuses repeat it without giving it a thought.
Are you telling me that I personally was “attracted to law enforcement because {I} suffer from a variety of emotional complexes”…etc? Are you telling me that I was incapable of telling the difference about whom I was surrounded? Can you do that from that distance? If so, make that fucking case, Alan. I am damned sick of being called nigger…and this bullshit about the emotional weakness of those who sought law enforcement is just another form of that. In case I have not clear, I maintain that that view is utter bullshit and without merit. The exception does not make the case. Now, make your goddamned bigoted argument. Don’t forget the “veteran” explanation. You have double niggered me. Let’s hear it.
Bitey
04/16/2021 @ 11:55 am
Let me make another thing clear to you mavens. I don’t condone a single action by the officer who shot Daunte Wright. She quite literally did not know what she was doing, and that is an indictment, not a defense. But, here’s the thing. Have you ever spent time looking for something, maybe a set of keys, and you looked for several minutes before you discovered that you were holding them in your hand? I know I have. Many people have. It is a common occurrence. You can not know what you are holding while distracted. It is quite easy. Another simple test would be to tell me what shirt you are wearing without looking at it. Most people can’t. It’s fucking easy to do.
I have had deep training with guns for nearly 40 years now. When I decided to buy my own for my home, I decided to have it made. Why? Familiarity and dependability. Guns and materials change over time and I wanted a reliable material (steel), and a familiar platform (1911). I can take this gun apart and put it back together blindfolded. Would I, of course not. But as a matter of discipline, I want to know what I am working with.
When I take it apart to inspect and clean it, I inspect every small part. I do it in much the same way that my father taught me to do so with my shoes as a small child, with my car as a teenager, and as I learned with guns as a Marine. Why? Maintenance and inspection are how you catch a problem before it can occur.
When I take the gun apart, I do not have rounds in the same room where I clean it. I do it this way without deviating from the pattern. Why? Because you can’t accidentally shoot yourself while cleaning the gun if it is not in the same room with a single round. This is a procedure and a discipline. I use a light which allows me to see down the barrel without looking down the barrel. Why? This should begin to be intuitive. You wont shoot yourself in the eye if it is not pointed at your eye…even with no rounds in the room. I shine the light down the barrel after the gun is disassembled. Why? Just an extra step of discipline beyond the previous. Then I put the gun back together and work the action. Before I leave that room, I do an inspection to make sure it is clear. Why? This room ver has rounds in it. Why clear it again? Discipline. If I have a failure, it wont be because I failed to follow my disciple.
The officer involved in the Daunte Wright killing failed to recognize that she needed to do a cross-draw to pull her taser. Strong hand goes to weak side of the body and pulls the weapon backward. She failed to establish a discipline that could trip her memory should the distraction be present. Some people do things poorly, Alan. She is one example. There are many. On the other hand, there are people who are trained to function under pressure from their childhood.
Ron Powell
04/16/2021 @ 11:35 pm
“The officer involved in the Daunte Wright killing failed to recognize that she needed to do a cross-draw to pull her taser. Strong hand goes to weak side of the body and pulls the weapon backward. She failed to establish a discipline that could trip her memory should the distraction be present. Some people do things poorly, Alan.”
Should this be the basis for ‘reasonable doubt’ and a vote for acquittal?
Jonna Connelly
04/16/2021 @ 1:35 pm
Not meaning to argue with you, Bitey, not at all because it seems to me you are right about just about everything, though you do seem to be in a bit of a mood today, but there’s this: It’s been my impression that when the press talks about the crumbling of the blue wall it has to do with the number of police personnel who have testified for the prosecution, from Chief Aridondo on down, and not the actual indictment.
(I was not thrilled when Keith Ellison stopped being my congressional rep to run for Attorney General but I guess I’m glad he did. I admire Ellison.)
Bitey
04/16/2021 @ 2:29 pm
I confess that I am in a mood today. That is not anyone’s fault but mine. I am fucking sick of hearing…all of (x) are inferior in some form or fashion. Every time I turn around, someone is saying that about something about me. It is moronic, and I am quite sick of it. I could try and say that politely but that doesn’t seem to come across.
As for the “blue wall”, cops have testified against cops since time immemorial. The blue wall refers to getting the initial or preliminary investigative evidence when cops were the only witnesses. That is not the case in the Chauvin matter. With video evidence of this kind, this case was always going to play out as it has. A defense would try to make smoke, and hope to hang the jury. The prosecution would do as it has. The main difference has been getting the charge. As it is, the case was taken away from the city attorney (or whomever), and given to the Attorney General, Ellison. That change was above the police department, not within it. Police Chiefs dont want to protect officers like Chauvin. Never have. That feeds into the misguided notion that police are emotionally troubled beasts trying to inflict pain on the populace. That’s some paranoid bullshit. Tactics instructors, and Use of Force instructors exist to instruct on the proper procedures and then to TESTIFY when a defendant has gone outside of policy. That isn’t new. You’re not getting the best reporting from any of the media outlets. My favorite outlets are included. They favor young reporters who lack experience, but look good on television, and they sideline older experienced reporters with perspective. All of the media outlets are selling sensation, and an experience that millennials can relate to. The “blue wall” is just the latest concept being misappropriated.
It shouldn’t matter to me. We are well into a world where facts don’t matter. I should just get drunk, go gorge myself on cannabis edibles, and gamble like I am trying to save the poor of Kolkata. Facts are reason are so 20th century.
koshersalaami
04/16/2021 @ 2:29 pm
Step One: There Is a prosecution. In Staten Island and Ferguson, MO, the prosecutors convened Grand Juries to talk them Out of indicting. Though I’m thrilled that police officials realized that Chauvin dishonored the badge.
Bitey
04/17/2021 @ 4:41 am
What is the color of the sky in your world, Powell? How could that possibly raise doubt? Wright is dead. The officer is shared with Manslaughter. She caused it. Where is the doubt?
Ron Powell
04/17/2021 @ 7:41 am
The defense will attempt to create “reasonable doubt” re that the shooting was ‘accidental’ possibly by using your scenario…
There need be only one juror gullible enough to buy into that scene to hang the jury and cause a mistrial.
Bitey
04/17/2021 @ 9:31 am
That would be an idiotic move given that the officer is charged with manslaughter. In a manslaughter charge, accidental death is the point. So, you see, Ron, saying that it was accidental would not be exculpatory. Do you understand now?
koshersalaami
04/17/2021 @ 2:40 pm
Wait, you’ve got to explain manslaughter to an attorney?
ArtWStone
04/17/2021 @ 3:30 pm
I’m enjoying this a lot more than some wanker trying to fool me with a pair of deuces.
Bitey
04/17/2021 @ 5:33 pm
I coaxed him out with, “how could that possibly raise doubt?” The poor fool never saw that haymaker coming.
Ron Powell
04/18/2021 @ 2:48 pm
“The officer involved in the Daunte Wright killing failed to recognize that she needed to do a cross-draw to pull her taser. Strong hand goes to weak side of the body and pulls the weapon backward. She failed to establish a discipline that could trip her memory should the distraction be present.”
I am more than well aware of the general definition of manslaughter.
I did a bit of ‘research’ on the Minnesota statute which covers the subject.
In Minnesota, there are several degrees of manslaughter:
Involuntary manslaughter is causing a person’s death by reckless or grossly negligent actions. In this type of manslaughter, it’s the disregard for the safety of others or risk of death that makes the actions criminal, rather than any intent to harm the victim. Minnesota also views these accidental deaths as criminal, but doesn’t penalize the crime as severely as an intentional killing.
Minnesota Second Degree Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter in Minnesota is called manslaughter in the second degree (or second degree manslaughter). This charge covers situations where a person’s negligence created an unreasonable risk or where a person consciously took a chance resulting in the death of a person. If convicted, you can face up to 10 years in prison and not more than a $20,000 fine.
1st Degree Manslaughter (3rd Degree Murder) in Minnesota is: Killing another person without premeditation and intent, through inherently dangerous acts, and with no regard for human life.
2nd Degree Manslaughter is defined in Minnesota as: “causing the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim.”
Criminally Negligent Manslaughter.
(Criminally Negligent Homicide)
Or, Depraved heart murder is a part of the Minnesota murder in the third degree statute.
This is causing an act so eminently dangerous to others that you would not have done it without having a completely depraved heart or mind.
When I raised the question re ‘reasonable doubt’ I wasn’t aware that the officer in question had been charged with 2nd Degree Manslaughter.
Which in essence is about causing a death without intending to do so…
In the case in question there’s the strong likelihood of a plea deal…
Given the evidence, there’s no legitimate way around a guilty verdict at trial.
Bitey
04/18/2021 @ 3:04 pm
“Should this be the basis for ‘reasonable doubt’ and a vote for acquittal?“
You made this statement. You follow SIX MINUTES later with the following.
“…The defense will attempt to create “reasonable doubt” re that the shooting was ‘accidental’ possibly by using your scenario…
There need be only one juror gullible enough to buy into that scene to hang the jury and cause a mistrial…”
I would like to direct your attention to the last two words on the first line, “your scenario”.
Not only are you trying there to attribute some derivation from the facts on my part in describing it as my “scenario”, but it also demonstrates the lack of understanding that accidental death is not exculpating in WHICHEVER Manslaughter charge you choose. No, it SHOULD not be the basis for reasonable doubt…nor COULD it. Furthermore, it is not my “scenario”. It is a matter of fact that the officer was charged with Manslaughter. No arrangement of facts, no matter who is presenting that, makes that any different.
Bitey
04/18/2021 @ 3:12 pm
Here is another way to say it. Minnesota charged the officer. I did not. The charge involves lack of intent. Intent is not part of the basis of this charge. The actions which resulted in the death of Mr. Wright are not presumed to be intentional. Whichever Manslaughter charge is chosen seeks accountability for actions, irrespective of whether depraved indifference was involved or not. Accidental is not exculpatory in this law, and could not be used to create reasonable doubt.
Do you get it yet?
Bitey
04/18/2021 @ 2:56 pm
If you are (or more importantly were) aware of the definition of Manslaughter, your implication shows you’re a shit for brains. You CAN’T hold both positions simultaneously. You implied that my saying that she was not aware of what she was doing could be twisted into some sort of exculpating argument. IF you understand or understood the definition of Manslaughter, you CAN’T make the exculpating argument. It is that simple.
Ron Powell
04/18/2021 @ 3:38 pm
Again, when I asked the question, I was not fully informed re the charge of 2nd degree manslaughter…
My mistake…
Given the evidence, there’s no legitimate way around a guilty verdict at trial.
“…you CAN’T make the exculpating argument. It is that simple.”
Hence a plea deal…
Bitey
04/18/2021 @ 3:58 pm
So what the FUCK does it have to do with “MY SCENARIO”? I did not contribute a scenario. I gave the facts. I have no bias in the matter, which was your implication. That is the point of my disagreement with you.
Ron Powell
04/20/2021 @ 12:36 am
“…she needed to do a cross-draw to pull her taser. Strong hand goes to weak side of the body and pulls the weapon backward. She failed to establish a discipline that could trip her memory should the distraction be present.”
We know that she failed to distinguish between the taser and the gun.
What we don’t know for certain is what was going through her mind at the moment of the failure to make the distinction.
“Strong hand goes to weak side of the body and pulls the weapon backward.”
Is this a universal element of police training?
Is it required that this specific action become demonstrably reflexive to the extent that the failure to establish a discipline (reflex) that could trip the (muscle) memory would be the basis of a fatal error?
If your description of what the officer should have done is a universal and uniform element of police training and; If
establishing a discipline (reflex) that could trip the (muscle) memory is a universal and uniform requirement, then there is no issue or argument with your having given the “facts” as you see the “facts” to be….
It is in this regard that I concede the point…
Bitey
04/20/2021 @ 8:13 am
Incidentally, conceding is conceding.
“facts” as you see the “facts” to be….“ This is not a concession. Facts are facts. You either recognize and concede that it is factual, or you show that it is not factual. I used the word “facts”, and referred directly to the facts. Those facts are the definition of the law, and the description of the actions as they apply to the law. Those are facts. They are not as I see them, nor are they some alternate definition of factual that requires quotation marks.
Bitey
04/20/2021 @ 5:57 am
“Is this a universal element of police training?” No. And it does not need to be. This is the way that department does it. It is their particular policy to place the taser on the weak hand side. It is entirely irrelevant whether it it a policy there, a policy universally, or just her personal arrangement. In this particular case it was both her personal arrangement and her department’s policy.
The fact that you must concede has zero to do with any of that. FIrst, you made an accusation based upon the notion of making an excuse about her not being aware. That can’t be done because she was charged with Manslaughter. Accidental death is in any definition of Manslaughter that you can find, including the two charges in her state. The discussion of the charge was expressed before you suggested that “my scenario” could provide her with an excuse, or “reasonable doubt”. It can’t. Anyone reading the comment before you made your accusation could have known that. You didn’t. Then, you find the legal definitions of Manslaughter and print them as a comment. That didn’t change anything. All of the relaxant information had already been communicated. The fact that there are two levels of Manslaughter makes no difference in the context of the discussion, or in her case. Near the beginning of the discussion I actually said, “she literally did not know what she was doing. This is not an excuse for her actions, it is an INDICTMENT…”. Directly from there you offered the bilge that it could be used as some way to create reasonable doubt. You sought to me me, a former cop, want to give her, some sort of excuse. Your comment was an insult that never came close to handling the facts. You don’t concede based upon any limited condition. You concede based upon the fact that you were clueless from beginning to end. You have the bad habit of being told something, and then turning around and telling it as if you revealed those facts, like when you printed the FindLaw definition.
No, Ron. You were wrong. I related the facts with no bias. Those are the facts.
Bitey
04/20/2021 @ 6:50 am
This could be of some help to you, although given what I am about to explain, I recognize that the chances of that are quite slim. Be that as it may, here is my theory of how you communicate.
Initially, the way you communicate is extremely confusing. Connections are rarely made. If they are they are made very slowly. First one notices that you rarely answer directly, if ever. It seems like avoidance or deception at first, but there tends not to be enough exchange to determine conclusively. You are also a big fan of subject change in midstream. Two examples of those are requests to you about “burden of proof”, or your supporting evidence. To my recollection, you have never done that. You never even address the concept, except in the FIndLaw definition, which was written for you, not by you. The second thing is that you do not operate on fresh information. You give no indication of learning in the moment of the exchange. Your communication style is one direction, typically from above, and directed downward. That can be seen in statements like, “I have graded too many papers to…”. You place yourself in some imaginary position of superiority and direct downward, often when not having the necessary information. The Manslaughter issue is one clear example. Once the light came on for you, however it did, you actually printed the definition and gave it. The only one who did not understand it was you, but you spoke it as though you were teaching it. The issue is that you tend not to be teachable.
Incidentally, that was not the first time you have done that. It is something that you repeat. About a year ago, a little more, I created a whimsical satirical post about the W.H.O. On the day that they declared Covid-19 epidemic a pandemic. I used the acronym for World Health Organization as a word, “WHO” capitalized, but with no punctuation for the illusion. I plugged that into the form of the “Who’s on first routine by Abbott and Costello. It should be noted that in addition to using their image as the art for the piece, I also switch back and forth between “Who”…written at the beginning of a question, to “WHO” written as the answer. In the famous spoken piece, the confusion is over the first baseman’s name. “Who”, and the question, “Who?” My written piece had an extra hurdle. “WHO” was capitalized as the response to designate the difference between what the person was asking in the question, and the actual answer. The routine is one of the most famous in the last century.
Your response was to find a video of the Abbott and Costello routine and place it in the comments. Now, what would be the purpose of that? It seemed to occur to you that the latter was based upon the former. That was correct. The humor of the latter required that the reader was familiar with the former, and the comedians photos were included as a very large clue. But your comment seemed to imply that you were MAKING a revelation rather than having one. It was awkward and somewhat accusatory, which is the pattern I am referring to. Yep, Abbott and Costello. Yep, accidental death is part of Manslaughter.
Another time I made a statement about racism being a power system. I made an allusion to a caste system. You printed some explanation of the Indian caste system, and put it in comments as if the metaphorical concept and use does not exist. I used it metaphorically. This seemed to have escaped you, YET, you attempted to lecture about what the caste system is in India. That fact is already built in when using it as a metaphor. The only one seemingly unable to grasp it was you. Another comment you made in that context was “now you (me) know what {people} have known for centuries…”, or something to that effect. The comment was insulting and condescending. You repeat that pattern over and over. Even your recent excuse of “is that some sort of police procedure…” is a deflection which attempts to explain why you did not know something that you should have, and you place it away as some oddity, not worthy of your attention. The fact of the matter is, it had nothing to do with policy. Only the facts matter. This is the reason for her not knowing whether it was department policy, or just her personal policy. And it was not my particular training. Tasers of my era were of a different form, and not carried on the officer’s body. The information to understand that event could be gleaned in the moment. Everything is revealed in the statement that they used a “cross-draw”. Any person able to absorb information in the moment, otherwise known as learning, could have known that. Sometimes it is called thinking on your feet.
Over time, your perplexing disconnect from what one presumes to be your knowledge from your education, and your communicated thoughts, form a pattern. That is the pattern. How does a lawyer not know the definition of Manslaughter? Giving you the most benefit of the doubt would be that you simply don’t listen. You only speak. There are a few less generous interpretations which I wont go into…because they simply do not matter to me.
The last thing I will say about this is that it is my theory. It is a theory based upon observations made over time, and with incidents that are listed above, and many others. These are not the only examples, but merely the only ones included. It should not be assumed that it is limited to these, and I trust the theory because the pattern never changes. I have never observed an example where your style deviated from the pattern I explained here.