It's almost time. Perhaps after the Chauvin verdict
That's some nice Let's-test-the-lady-to-see-if-she's-a-witch-by-throwing-her-in-water-and-if-she-survives-it's-confirmed type of logic. Retarded.
Well, I haven't seen THIS on the news!
This "expert" is a jackass, and is probably the worst one of the trial for the state after Dr. Baker. Zero credibility, uninformed, and arguing that Minneapolis PD training is out of touch with national standards...if that's true that REALLY damages the State.
Absolute jackass.
Yes, of course.
ohh noooo hahahahaha
There are plenty of "very senior officers" who are female - who I work with - that are completely incompetent and should be fired for that incompetence. Instead they are promoted because there are only 10 women at the department and firing 6 of them might lead to a lawsuit
Just really dumb.
I agree, and I'm a cop. However, given the way the legal system works, even this good faith mistake can be viewed as legal negligence even if she had no intention of killing Wright. Unfortunate and sad but true.
Quite different than Chauvin, actually, because the prone restraint is legal and commonly used. Any cop who claims otherwise is a liar.
It's happened a few times...google Johannes Mehserle from BART in San Francisco. Officer was convicted of manslaughter due to his mistaking his gun for a Taser. That's precisely what happened here, as you hear her give the Taser! Taser! Taser! warning, which is standard protocol. Tragic mistake here by the lady cop and she will no doubt pay the price.
He's one of those troublesome White-Hispanics. So yes.
I want to say it is a humorous pic from the cover one of his books. I think from "In 50 Years We'll All Be Chicks." Sad part, the changes went into hyperdrive and the book was accurate in less than 10
Don't be nice. Other than that I agree
Politically, yes. I agree with you. Morally, and from a perspective of justice? No. But then again, when has the State of Minnesota been interested in justice?
Going beyond the training is not explicitly illegal, despite what the State says. It certainly exposes one's department and oneself to civil liability...but doing beyond training and policy is not specifically criminal.
You mean charging him period?
Even if actions are outside policy, they do not necessarily constitute criminal actions.
Violations of policy might be reasons to be fired but they are not, in and of themselves crimes. The state, in their infinite deception is intentionally trying to conflate the two to make the facts appear more damning for Chauvin than they truly are.
Absolutely
You're going to need a lot of help. One man by himself cannot take on a task that massive.
It was scheduled to go a month. Give or take a few days.
You been watching/reading Andrew Branca's daily coverage of the trial at legalinsurrection.com?
That's insane and sounds like fatal numbers.