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.
But one night in that lillywhite setting, a drunken white guy decided to resist arrest. Literally about six cops were fighting with him to try and subdue him. And he was a skinny little guy.
What people miss is that one person who is fighting arrest can create a lot of disruption.
Yeah, the amount of force used needs to be the minimum to stop the threat, but when exactly does the threat stop. Anyway, whether the force was reasonable is a question for the jury: not the general public.
Especially not a general public which is highly polarised to the extent they can't see straight.
You can't go around saying you support "first responders" and "essential workers" and then try to second guess them when they do their job. You either want them to run into that building with an active shooter, or live with the fact that they don't want the liability.
Which gets to my next point. Daunte Wright had an open warrant for a firearms offence where he threatened a woman.
Should the people who want to regulate guns and get them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them support someone like that? Isn't there a serious amount of hypocrisy going on here? Or is this a case of blinders being so blinding that the people who blindly support Daunte Wright neglect that he is someone they should hate more than Donald Trump?
OK, maybe we should say he is alleged to have done these things. Likewise, Derek Chauvin is alleged to have killed George Floyd until he is found guilty if we are going down that road.
The bottom line is that if you run around saying no one is above the law, maybe you shouldn't be giving support to people who are videotaped resisting arrest and have long criminal records.
Especially if the result of that silliness is that you end up supporting someone who is what you claim to want to see ended: a man who beats women and carries guns which are used in crimes.
Bottom line, there is a legal system, which is where the question of whether the arrest was legal, especially if there was resistance, should be decided. I know that the outcomes would have been vastly different if the legal system had been where this was decided instead of the street.
According to the Post, Ford described how Kavanaugh and a friend – both “stumbling drunk” – corralled her into a bedroom at a house in Montgomery county, Maryland.Aside from the fact that Kavanaugh was under the age of majority, which leads to questions about criminal responsibility in this matter. Various issues regarding juvenile justice had there been an adjudication of delinquency and its ability to be used in this matter. There wasn't any sort of formal process in this matter, which is another problem.
The Post reported: “While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.”
Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California, told the Post: “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”
She added: “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”
