In this case Nancy Pelosi doing her version of the Q&A in the Black Church segment from the film Bulworth.
The clip from the film
The movie clip is actually closer to how the "Democratic" party uses identity politics to try and drum up votes. The irony is that the Creepy Joe-Horrible Harris ticket was a major fuck you to the people who they claim to support. Briahna Joy Gray to explain this.
Nothing like a nice show trial instead of actual political action and discussion.
OK, the popular line is that "I support the police, but Derek Chauvin was a rogue cop."
I'm not sure if they watched the entire video of the arrest since George Floyd was actively resisting arrest. And there's an interesting take that none of the bystanders tried to step in to protect Floyd's life.
And there was Fetanyl and other drugs in Floyd's system. People ignore that this is a dangerous drug. The RAND think tank calls it the most dangerous drug in the US. Fetanyl is a highly lethal drug, which was one of the many things that the defence should have pointed out. Especially since the amount in Floyd's body was well into lethal levels from what I heard.
That's what "reasonable doubt" is about. Is there enough of a doubt that Chauvin's actions were the cause for Floyd's death? Maybe the defence didn't want to chance it, but perhaps pursuing that line of inquiry would have resulted in a different outcome.
On the other hand, the climate was such that the Judge commented that Chauvin might have a good chance of winning on appeal. That's the outcome I expect to see to this. Chauvin's conviction will be overturned on appeal and he will be quietly acquitted.
The real place where this should be tried is in the criminal justice system, not the court of public opinion. The fact that this was a political football surrounded by riots removed any objectivity from the matter. In fact, the politics surrounding this will make this a travesty if people want to see any sense of "order".
Police forces were already seeing officers leaving and having problems with recruitment. It's going to get harder and harder to find decent people who will want to do the job for the salary they get.
I'd rather have a Derek Chauvin doing his job than someone like a Kyle Rittenhouse stepping in because there is no police. The US may learn the lesson of the Murray Hill Riot the hard way.
And it's bad.
I wonder if the people cheering that Derek Chauvin was found guilty will be happy if police forces start having problems with recruiting and retention. Will cops move on to forces that are more supportive, or just go to different jobs. What will be the future of policing?
They need to look to the North and Montreal to learn the lesson of the 1969 Police Strike, otherwise known as the Murray Hill Riot.
I would also add that regulating firearms has taken a major strike since people will be even more prone to buying guns for protection.
The gun control crowd should have had a serious think before they started supporting people who carry guns and threaten people over the police. I know the law and I know when one can use deadly force if threatened, but cops put their lives on the line on a regular basis. Case in point this video:
Yes, they should be put on trial if they use excessive force, but remember that there are people out there who would kill the police for doing their jobs.
So, temper your joy in the outcome of this verdict.
And for the "Gun Violence Prevention" types, you either want to get guns off the streets and out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, or realise that you are acting against your interests by supporting the gun carriers, such as Daunte Wright, Adam Toledo, Breonna Taylor, Alton Sterling, Tony McDade, Philando Castile, and other people who are alleged to have been in possession of firearms when stopped by the police.
You either want the guns off the street or need to shut the fuck up when people feel the need to own guns for personal defence.
I want the guns off the street and out of the hands of criminals.
The exact mechanisms through which the riots affected economic activity over a long period of time are difficult to identify, but a large number of potentially reinforcing channels exist. Property risk might seem higher in central city neighborhoods than before the riots, causing insurance premiums to rise; taxes for income redistribution or more police and fire protection might increase, and municipal bonds may be more difficult to place; retail outlets might close; businesses and employment opportunities might relocate; middle and higher income households might move away; burned out buildings might be an eyesore; and so on. These damaging aspects of riots, the authors find, apparently outweighed outside assistance directed toward the riot areas in the wake of the disturbances.
Yet for many decades, the instigators and participants in race riots were usually white, not black, and the purpose of the rioting was to assert white domination rather than to express black anger and frustration. During Reconstruction and for a while thereafter, race riots often occurred during elections, as white mobs sought to intimidate the newly enfranchised black voters and to regain power from politicians who would give Blacks an equal opportunity in post–Civil War society. Riots in Memphis, Tenn.; New Orleans, La.; Charleston, S.C.; and Eufaula, Ala., led to dozens of African-American deaths.The bottom line is who will really end up benefiting from the violence of the last few days? It's already changed the dialogue from police brutality to senseless violence of the rioters.
