Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:06 pm Yea.

It’s just wild that this isn’t a bigger concern to more people.

Agents of the state mowing down unarmed civilians sounds so Orwellian, but for a number of reasons, Mericans are just like used to it.

I have a couple police brutality cases right now, one being a death case where the force was completely warranted. Previously had a death case where there was excess force.

In all of them, the public pretty much doesn't give a flying fuggggggg.

Yeah, go figure.

Are you able to share any general details?

General details is an oxymoron but you know what I mean.

meanwhile...

Good.

Yeah for real.

(Even with civilians, and even on camera, remember how long it took to bring charges in that one??)

those crackers definitely deserve what’s coming

and i have zero issue referring to them as crackers

so in NYC from now on, social workers and EMTs will respond to nonviolent mental health crises, instead of cops.

Anthony Alvarez, shot in the back while fleeing from chicago cops...supposedly following a traffic stop

this just days after the unarmed teenager was shot

at this point, i don’t even care if he had a gun. he didn’t point or fire it at officers. he was running away, and shot in the back.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:18 pm Anthony Alvarez, shot in the back while fleeing from chicago cops...supposedly following a traffic stop

this just days after the unarmed teenager was shot

at this point, i don’t even care if he had a gun. he didn’t point or fire it at officers. he was running away, and shot in the back.

What "unarmed" teenager was shot? Adam Toledo? Kid had a gun and had been shooting at a car.
Did he "deserve" to be shot by the Cop/s? Probably not but the moral of the story is don't be an asshole with a gun. Meaning citizens but of course Cops included.

Alvarez was told to drop the gun. He didn't. Did he "deserve" to be shot? Probably not but the moral of the story is don't be an asshole with a gun. Meaning citizens but of course Cops included.

See the theme here?

PLENTY of shitty Chicago Cops but meanwhile, when I was walking on Michigan Avenue today I watched a Cop drive up to homeless people asking them if they needed underwear and/or socks. I walked up to his car and told him I thought it was very cool of him. He said, "Not all Cops are assholes".

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:22 pm so in NYC from now on, social workers and EMTs will respond to nonviolent mental health crises, instead of cops.

What could possibly go wrong?

assuming he's correct, maybe the q is more properly framed as, "go right"?

and to be clear, I mean that it would be a sensible approach, well worth trying; the current approach, which requires LEOs to function as de facto social workers, is clearly a huge source of problems

Problematic in such a public case as this one was..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chauvin-juro ... 18703.html

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:55 am Problematic in such a public case as this one was..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chauvin-juro ... 18703.html

Absolutely not. You don't get tabula rasa jurors, you get a jury of your peers. If the defense didn't filter out this juror in voir dire , then that's on them. You can both believe that Black Lives Matter, and be on a jury where you are committed to be impartial. For the Roger Stone case, there was a MAGA juror that kept a MAGA hat in her car, and spouted Trump bullshit all over the news hours after the trial was over. But you know what, she also gave a guilty verdict and went against her political leaning. You need to trust juries to do the right thing. They often do.

For that matter, it’s a wonder the Chauvin jury didn’t have some lobster on it to hang the whole thing up.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:55 am Problematic in such a public case as this one was..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chauvin-juro ... 18703.html

I don't find it all that problematic tbh. In this day and age, in a case like this, it's impossible for people to know nothing about what happened.

They did their job and found him guilty unanimously.

Had he been the ONLY person that found him guilty then that would have been problematic in my eyes.

vega wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:07 am

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:55 am Problematic in such a public case as this one was..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chauvin-juro ... 18703.html

Absolutely not. You don't get tabula rasa jurors, you get a jury of your peers. If the defense didn't filter out this juror in voir dire , then that's on them. You can both believe that Black Lives Matter, and be on a jury where you are committed to be impartial. For the Roger Stone case, there was a MAGA juror that kept a MAGA hat in her car, and spouted Trump bullshit all over the news hours after the trial was over. But you know what, she also gave a guilty verdict and went against her political leaning. You need to trust juries to do the right thing. They often do.

For sure.

I am/was shocked that lady remained impartial, but is a good example of how people often times do the right thing.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:10 am For that matter, it’s a wonder the Chauvin jury didn’t have some lobster on it to hang the whole thing up.

No not really. I wasn't surprised at all.

But not surprised that you'd think that.

vega wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:07 am

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:55 am Problematic in such a public case as this one was..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chauvin-juro ... 18703.html

Absolutely not. You don't get tabula rasa jurors, you get a jury of your peers. If the defense didn't filter out this juror in voir dire , then that's on them. You can both believe that Black Lives Matter, and be on a jury where you are committed to be impartial. For the Roger Stone case, there was a MAGA juror that kept a MAGA hat in her car, and spouted Trump bullshit all over the news hours after the trial was over. But you know what, she also gave a guilty verdict and went against her political leaning. You need to trust juries to do the right thing. They often do.

Interesting. I always thought that if you leaned heavily one way or the other, you were supposed to remove yourself as a juror. But that was like 15+ years ago when I was informed about a lot of that stuff.

I have jury duty tomorrow!

Or at least I might. Gotta call tonight and see if it’s still on.

But yea, I thought you could just like blurt out something prejudiced during selection and get out of it?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:48 amI thought you could just like blurt out something prejudiced during selection and get out of it?

That's a good way to piss the judge off and not get credit for service, meaning you will be back soon.