SectionC3

I agree. Far be it for me to translate for someone who is rightfully deeply pissed off about what occurred in Minnesota what the protesters are mad about. This seems to be a reaction not just to what happened this week, but to deep systemic issues and complaints with respect to law enforcement - not with respect to a particular law. I’d like to leave politics out of this one. It’s nice to find an issue that transcends politics and focuses on our (supposedly but not always) neutral justice and law enforcement systems. There will be a political discussion later, and it’s going to cut both ways, just as it did in 1968. But the focus now should rest on process and the prompt and fair administration of justice.

Sort of. I suspect the “color of law” issue probably arises in the context of 42 USC 1983. But that’s out of my lane. With respect to the most culpable officer, the state criminal case most likely is going to be about culpable mental state (intent to cause death, intent to cause physical injury that resulted in death, recklessly causing death, etc.) and whether the exertion of what in this case was deadly physical force was justified (that is, privileged under the circumstances and therefore lawful). The other officers might have issues with respect to accomplice liability, and depending on what the evidences shows the review might be a lot more complicated with respect to them.

What crime should the officer have been charged with if he was arrested? Intentional murder? Depraved indifference murder (assuming there is such a crime in Minnesota)? Man 1? Man 2? Criminally negligent homicide? And do you want the other cops at the scene to roll on the guy? Maybe you do, depending on what the evidence says. If you jump the gun on the primary target the less culpable guys might completely clam up (I realize they’re unlikely to talk without some sort of cooperation agreement) because they fear a rush to judgment against them, too. (This, of course, also assumes that the prosecutor is willing to accept cooperation from the potentially less culpable officers in exchange for potential leniency.) This case might not be as clear-cut as you think, and for that reason it makes sense to look at everything you can (within a reasonable amount of time) before proceeding against the most culpable officers and potentially the other officers. There are a lot of calculations to be made here. Justice isn’t always an immediate or fast-moving thing.

We’re clear on the basic vocabulary. Frankly the only reason to arrest the most culpable officer now would be to prevent absconder (unlikely here; there’s probably eyes on the guy) or to quell the riots. But to arrest now also kick-starts a process involving indictment, disclosure, and speedy trial considerations. Sometimes it takes a little time to administer justice the right way.

Well said. The officer who applied the knee is in deep legal (criminal) trouble. The other ones I’m not entirely sure about. I need to see more video, hear eyewitness accounts, check for cell and other surveillance video, and see where it goes. None of the questions with respect to any of the officers should be answered without a reasoned investigation.

I’m not at all defending any of the officers. From what the video shows, this was egregious, despicable, and utterly inexcusable. My guess is that crowd control probably was part of the calculus. I’m sure we’ll learn more in the days and weeks to come.

Biden’s condolences to COVID victims was outstanding. I suspect it’s why Trump finally addressed the issue (on Twitter, naturally). I wonder if Biden is finding his groove on how to campaign in a pandemic. Weekly “fireside chats” might work really, really well for him.

Oh boy. Now it’s ED. It just gets worse and worse with you. The fragile detente holds, sir. For now.

Spitzer is a scumbag. Whether he should have been prosecuted I can’t say. But you’ll get no argument from me that he is exactly the type of personality we don’t want in public office.

I don’t know the Minn laws either, but I share your suspicion that man 2 would be in order if the crime occurred in NYS. An aggressive prosecutor might hit him with murder 2 under intentional and depraved indifference theories in NYS and use man 2 as a backup if neither of the top counts sticks. This is the type of case that has the potential to be overcharged, so who knows. No kidding. 2020 is on fire. Just when you think it can’t get any crazier, it does.

I’ll start with the resignation of the attorneys. It’s weird. I agree with your friend on Sullivan. No experience or background with the judge, but the procedure here is eminently fair and cautious. It’s a very, very smart approach to a politically-charged case. And it’s especially appropriate from what little of the backstory I know here - Flynn moves to vacate, and the government (again, from what I understand and could be wrong) doesn’t support the motion with a substantive submission and instead simply doesn’t oppose it. In this context, that’s odd. So Sullivan is doing due diligence and having an amicus stand in the shoes of the government to make sure that the government’s approach is above-board. Perfectly reasonable and apolitical. Your friend is right about the finality point. The question of guilt has been resolved, but we don’t have a judgment yet (which typically signifies the end of a case at the trial level) because Flynn hasn’t been sentenced and the judgment is rendered only after sentence is imposed. So while the question is guilt at this point is closed/answered, the case is still live because there is an untaken step with respect to the guilty plea (namely, the sentence, and I suppose the motion to withdraw the plea). You and I are both sort of right about the guilty issue. My point is a technical one. Flynn is guilty because he pleaded guilty and the guilty plea has not been withdrawn or otherwise disturbed. Until something disturbs the plea, he is guilty, like it or lump it. Your point is a practical one; because Flynn has moved to withdraw the plea, there’s good reason to believe that the final word on the question of his guilt has not been spoken. It may be that down the road you’re right about that. Time will tell. Finally, that was a nice post you made. We may disagree on the issues, but I very much respect your honesty. I try to live my life and work my job that way, and I very, very much respect you taking the time to reason through this interesting legal issue. Well done.

Copying the libs to own the libs. Nice!

Hmmmn. I don’t know where you came up with this unconditional surrender thing. If you want to end the detente, just let me know. I feel like you’re the only one who benefits from the service I provide in reminding you of certain problems that require deeper reflection on your part, and I’m happy to get going on that front again if you would like.

The officers and the looters, etc., all are wrong here. The issue is the attempt to identify an equivalency between the acts. Based on what I’ve seen, George Floyd’s death isn’t a murder. But it could well be a manslaughter. The wrongful taking of a life is infinitely worse than the inexcusable acts of thievery, destruction of property, looting, etc. that have occurred. They don’t belong in the same conversation. The looters absolutely are disgraceful and wrong. But that’s a conversation to be had separate from the police brutality issue that we unfortunately have to again grapple with as a society.

Wuhan virus. Nice. Had a little homophobia from you this morning, now it’s time to bring a bit of racism into the mix. Our detente grows more fragile by the minute, sir.

That’s more culture that I expected today. A little En Vogue. Interesting. I’m not sure what the “it” is, though. Care to explain?

It looked pretty crooked and narrow to me. Sad!

Point of fact it is, though. That’s the misconception about rape/sexual assault cases. Her testimony was legally sufficient to support the allegation. Whether it should be credited is a different matter. That’s the weight issue. We all see it differently, and those differences are what make the world a sometimes fun and always interesting place.

Expertise in matters of civics and weird animated kids shows. Impressive. No obstruction!

I completely agree with that characterization of the strategy of Trumpers.

No angst. I’m having fun. I am, however, growing bored waiting for you to name this “best friend” and to explain how I’m “always wrong.” FYI, I appreciate that we’re going round and round here, but her testimony alone is enough to support her contention. I happen to believe her. You have a different opinion. Such is life.

It’s impressive that he got them out considering he had a mouthful of Lysol, right?

Here’s the guess as to why BillsFan1959 took a legal mind honed by 35+ years of staring at a wall in a courtroom and deluding himself into thinking he is better equipped than the people who, you know, actually have the guts and smarts to get into the arena in the same room in which he stood idly by took his ball and went home on this one: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/09/29/christine-blasey-fords-friend-clarifies-kavanaugh-statement/

Bottom line: you can’t name this purported “best friend,” and you can’t tell me how I’m “always wrong.”

Use tech and human safeguards in remote areas. Building a static wall there is a waste of money. Focus resources on more critical areas. If there isn’t a problem with illegals in, say, Big Bend National Park, we shouldn’t spend $1m/mile or whatever the cost of the wall is (I actually think it’s quite a bit more) in that place. I appreciate that there might be more long-term costs in such areas (e.g., paying people, cost of maintaining cameras, drones, etc.), but we probably would need such long-term measures even with the wall given the ease with which such a device may be breached. In other words, relying solely on wall in remote areas is a bad idea, so the concern with respect to human and technological costs probably isn’t a big one. Don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t believe that Trump called Vicente Fox or Fernando Valenzuela a rapist, or that he said that all Mexican women are rapists. I do believe that he has demonized Mexicans for his own gain. That much is sure.