891
Comments (105)
sorted by:
94
rimper 94 points ago +94 / -0

He's not going to be able to make his 2nd degree murder charge stick, and then wait until you see those resulting riots. Ellison is either dangerously oblivious or dangerously sociopathic.

67
Cesare_Borgia 67 points ago +67 / -0

The goal is for all them to get off, and rightfully so, probably around late October. Then we can have more riots in saint George's name.

18
deleted 18 points ago +18 / -0
16
Illinoyed 16 points ago +16 / -0

This is exactly what I’ve been saying. October surprise riots

12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
7
JustHereForTheSalmon 7 points ago +7 / -0

Ok, but, hear me out.

Rioting areas are too dangerous of postal workers. They cannot be charged with entering war zones to move piddling pieces of paper. Oops!

2
WU_HAN_FRU 2 points ago +2 / -0

They'll make them do it, maybe even call a special session of Congress to give them a billion dollars in hazard pay.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Under25BMI 2 points ago +2 / -0

They will push the trial quickly for so that "JUSTICE" is not "DELAYED."

3
jlynbk 3 points ago +3 / -0

Those riots would do some serious democrat voter suppression.

2
trumpORbust 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why vote when the government and media/sports/starts cave to mood demands ..

Ticket 5 said it well, without any lobbies or laws being passed, BLM is renaming streets, removing statues, censoring opposition, and voiding laws for property crimes ... Just bitch and whine until you get your way

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
james43552352345 1 point ago +1 / -0

The riots are fine. It is usually democrat cities that pay the highest price.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
21
betweenthelines_mn 21 points ago +21 / -0

Definitely sociopathic.

6
ProphetOfKek 6 points ago +6 / -0

He was under consideration for DNC chair at one point. Which supports what you say.

3
eagleeyeddjt 3 points ago +3 / -0

Not just under consideration, but a few votes shy. It was razor thin.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
6
Ricky_CIA 6 points ago +6 / -0

He's an ANTIFA fan, so you can assume the latter.

5
Keln 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's on purpose. They want massive rioting before the election. They want to hammer home this narrative that America has a systemic racism problem. And they want to make Trump somehow the face of that "problem".

And when that doesn't work (because it won't), they'll hope for all out war in the streets.

4
eagleeyeddjt 4 points ago +4 / -0

He's literally affiliated with Antifa. There are pictures of him with Luis whatever his name is from Portland Antifa.

2
keithkman 2 points ago +2 / -0

He’s deleted a tweet from Jan 2018 of him taking a selfie with the Antifa handbook. No way these cops get a fair trial. 😂

56
Womb__Raider3 56 points ago +56 / -0

Someone needs to file a FOIA and get the footage.

People need the truth. This trial by media/public opinion based on .01% of the story needs to stop.

21
outsidesmoke 21 points ago +21 / -0

And by the time they respond it will be late october.

11
Nadlers_Belt 11 points ago +11 / -0

even that is optimistic.

“delayed due to covid wave 2”

12
FentanylFloyd 12 points ago +12 / -0

Can't the defendant lawyers demand the footage get released?

8
Belleoffreedom 8 points ago +8 / -0

Lawyers on both sides are supposed to keep their mouths shut.

The demand for video needs to come from the public, or newsies.

3
AlohaSnackbar 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lawyers for one side are supposed to zealously and vigorously represent their client(s), lawyers for the other side are "supposed" to fight for the proper application of the law.

Although there may have been a gag order I missed, I don't think there was.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
BaldyGull 1 point ago +1 / -0

What is crazy is that the video in the news is from a local shop's security cam. We have the start and the end. You can't find the whole video. The business has it. Presumably they sent the whole thing to the media. Where is the rest of that video? Why was George Floyd removed from the car? What happened when they tried to get him out of the car? Why did it take 4 cops to detain him?

36
FuckRioters 36 points ago +36 / -0

That's because Floyd can't breathe before he's on the ground. That paints a very different story.

15
deleted 15 points ago +15 / -0
18
BrewSwillis 18 points ago +18 / -0

The body cam audio shows that the cops knew he was freaking out, and they were just trying to hold him down and steady. One cop asked if, because of that "should we turn him on his side", and officer Chauvin said "no, that's why we are keeping him on his stomach". His actions, right or wrong, were not intended to kill George Floyd, but to actually help him...... unless, he's so diabolical that he just said those things on his body cam, so that he could murder Floyd in broad daylight, with people watching and filming him?

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
2
Block_Helen 2 points ago +2 / -0

unless, he's so diabolical that he just said those things on his body cam, so that he could murder Floyd in broad daylight, with people watching and filming him?

I know. It defies common sense to think otherwise. But people do, even here on TD.

8
DicksOutForHarambe 8 points ago +8 / -0

He overdosed.

2
isitpedanticenough 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ultimately, you can blame the mayor and police chief for training their officers this way. MPD trained their officers to do prone neck restraints for subjects they believed were experiencing excited delirium. Here is an excerpt from a very informative article about the facts of the case, and MPD's training. Link to actual article at the end.

As noted earlier, the government complaint against Chauvin states that the officers suspected excited delirium:

Lane asked, “should we roll him on his side?” and the defendant said, “No, staying put where we got him.” Officer Lane said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.” The defendant said, “That’s why we have him on his stomach.”

This excerpt is of twofold importance. First, it demonstrates that two officers suspected excited delirium. Second, it demonstrates that Chauvin was restraining Floyd in this position because he suspected excited delirium (“that’s why we have him on his stomach”). Restraining an individual on his stomach is common in ExDS encounters. This is called “prone restraint”. In fact, it is often the recommended form of restraint until the officers can safely put the suspect in a different position:

As mentioned before, people experiencing EXD are highly agitated, violent, and show signs of unexpected strength so it is not surprising that most require physical restraint. The prone maximal restraint position (PMRP, also known as “hobble” or “hogtie”), where the person’s ankles and wrists are bound together behind their back, has been used extensively by field personnel. In far fewer cases, persons have been tied to a hospital gurney or manually held prone with knee pressure on the back or neck.

Two years ago, the 8th circuit ruled on a case involving both prone restraint and ExDS, writing that officers are entitled to qualified immunity in cases involving prone restraint, specifically denying 4th amendment privilege against excessive force:

Officers determined that keeping Layton in a prone position was best given his continued resistance, and Baker pressed Layton’s shoulders to the ground while Groby held Layton’s thighs […] this court has not deemed prone restraint unconstitutional in and of itself the few times we have addressed the issue […] Under these cases, there is no clearly established right against the use of prone restraints for a suspect that has been resisting.

Article here: https://medium.com/@gavrilodavid/why-derek-chauvin-may-get-off-his-murder-charge-2e2ad8d0911

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
4
james43552352345 4 points ago +5 / -1

Floyd was claustrophobic and the officers forced him into the back of the police car. Guess what happens when you are claustrophobic and go into a confined space? Oh yeah, panic attack and the feeling of being unable to breathe. When Chauvin saw him going into a panic attack he took him out of the car and placed him on the ground. Why? Because when people go into a state of delirium they could get themselves hurt by flinching around, hitting their head, falling over and so on. IT IS DEPARTMENT POLICY TO DO THIS!

This narrative is confirmed by what the other officers were talking about.

28
Smurfection 28 points ago +28 / -0

He's refusing to release the body cam footage because it will show George Floyd resisting arrest and assaulting cops when they tried to put him in the car. It's going to show him bolting out the passenger side and all four of them subduing him.

11
SharpCookie 11 points ago +11 / -0

Does anyone know if there's any legal rebuttal to this or does the AG have sole discretion to release or not release the footage?

9
Toughsky_Shitsky 9 points ago +9 / -0

Federal civil rights case. Feds can demand all evidence, including bodycam video, and then release it.

But that would require a competent DoJ and US AG.

So, at the moment, the answer to your question is "yes, but no".

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
Toughsky_Shitsky 2 points ago +2 / -0

At this point, our useless DoJ is enabling the destruction of American cities through its inaction.

And it started a year ago when antifa was allowed to attack conservatives on the streets of Berkeley, Portland, and Seattle with ZERO action from the fatass AG.

The escalation that we see now was easily predictable.

Also, how are the monetary backers (Soros and others) of this 3rd world political violence still allowed to walk around free to destroy our country? WTF does Billy Barr think his job is?

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Toughsky_Shitsky 2 points ago +2 / -0

Inaction by those with the power to stop it is enabling the destruction now .. no matter who started it and is continuing/escalating it.

9
BobbyTwoScoops 9 points ago +10 / -1

Until I see some real fucking sauce, you can lick my balls. Link to the source please.

8
NancyPeloci 8 points ago +9 / -1

https://news.yahoo.com/keith-ellison-releasing-body-camera-201758036.html So... now do you lick my balls or how does this work?

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
BobbyTwoScoops 1 point ago +1 / -0

I definitely wouldn't lick balls for information coming from Washington Post.

0
NancyPeloci 0 points ago +1 / -1

... I mean, it's a video of Keith Ellison saying he has body cam video and he's not going to release it yet. Don't worry bud, I'll get them nice and shaved for you.

2
BobbyTwoScoops 2 points ago +2 / -0

Slow down baby. I like them hairy.

1
PeytonManThing 1 point ago +1 / -0

If he released the footage it’d be the top story of the world. You’d know

9
RS34ME 9 points ago +9 / -0

Must be hiding something. Atlanta released footage of Rayshard Brooks with no hold-ups. 🤷‍♀️

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
5
Freedom4545 5 points ago +5 / -0

The ONLY reason they would not release the footage is that it hurts their case. IF he was on camera mocking and laughing, being intentionally hostile he would release it in one second.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
4
IAmCovfefe 4 points ago +4 / -0

I’m sure they’ll release the body cam footage on or after November 4th, 2020.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
Toughsky_Shitsky 3 points ago +3 / -0

Federal civil rights case. Feds can demand the bodycam footage, and then release it to the public.

But, that would require the DoJ do do something good for America.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
nikandr23 3 points ago +3 / -0

what about this video

https://www.instagram.com/p/CA1BObVnbqt

clearly visible police placed him to a car, but he tried to run away throug another door

why only BLM activist Shaun King has this video?

1
CJBarnacle 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Police were in the car beating the shit out of him."

This dude is shameless.

1
nikandr23 1 point ago +1 / -0

probably that dude has Whole Video

2
astro_eng 2 points ago +2 / -0

What difference at this point will it make? The folks rioting dont give a shit. It can only hurt at this point and cause more rioting imo.

1
CJBarnacle 1 point ago +1 / -0

We can't help those people but we can help the people in the middle see the truth.

1
astro_eng 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are any of those left?

2
flashersenpai 2 points ago +2 / -0

When asked if body camera footage would be released before the trial, Minnesota AG Keith Ellison said, “I’m a firm believer in transparency, and the public’s right to know, but a higher priority for me is a successful prosecution. Therefore, I’ll consult with our lead investigators and I’ll say to them ‘when can we release this information to the public and still safeguard the prosecution.’ If we can do it before [trial] I would have no problem with doing that.”

That doesn't sound like refusing, even if Ellison is a scum boy.

2
PeytonManThing 2 points ago +2 / -0

That is refusing. Because the defense has a right to that footage. And how in the fuck is a lack of transparency supposed to help create a fair trial? What are they hoping for, a jury that comes in having seen the damning video but not the exonerating one, so they’re primed to convict?

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
PeytonManThing 2 points ago +2 / -0

The police department needs to just leak that shit

2
CJBarnacle 2 points ago +2 / -0

It will eventually leak and redpill millions (hopefully).

2
GuyWithUsername 2 points ago +2 / -0

I read somewhere that Derek Chauvin had turned his off. I don’t know if it’s true, but that’s gotta be a crime.

2
Block_Helen 2 points ago +2 / -0

The fact that we haven't seen it yet is near proof that it contains exonerating material. This has been true since day one.

That's also why the police union is coming out so tough. They know what's on the footage.

-1
flashersenpai -1 points ago +3 / -4

OP is a figgit who doesn't post sources took me to some rando on twitter

-1
Meddlesom -1 points ago +2 / -3

I'm pretty sure that releasing the body cam footage (evidence) to the public before the trial would interfere with the officer's rights to a fair trial... it would further influence any perspective jurors before they are even chosen. Any lawyers want to chime in on that?

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +2 / -1

Doesn't seem like a uniform practice. Lots of PDs release cam footage within days.

1
Meddlesom 1 point ago +1 / -0

When the incident is not going to trial, sure.

0
TehAgent 0 points ago +2 / -2

Exactly.

I mean the news hasnt really covered it or anything so the jury pool hasnt been tainted yet.

Oh wait...

0
Meddlesom 0 points ago +1 / -1

...and if the MSM had the body cam footage too, they would edit it to tell the narrative they want it to tell. Use your fucking head.

1
TehAgent 1 point ago +1 / -0

Typical emotional reaction when your lack of logic is called out and put on display.

-1
Meddlesom -1 points ago +1 / -2

You called out nothing but your own ignorance, you prissy little fuckboy. Even in Commiefornia, police departments can delay the release of footage for 45 days if it would interfere with the investigation or in the defendant's right to a fair trial. It doesn't matter what has already been released by third parties and what the public's opinion is, they're not going to release every scrap of evidence to the public before the trial.

Perhaps you should move to a communist country if you believe we no longer have the right to a fair trial. You'd fit right in.

1
TehAgent 1 point ago +1 / -0

Such fee fees. You should realize that Im not as emotional as you are about this, so you’re wasting your time trying to say things that you think will bother me. I really don’t care what an emotional, childish random says. Logic dictates my replies, not tendies.

Especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

If this is how you act please don’t represent Donald Trump publicly. It’s a bad look for the rest of us mature adults.