The article says they were named Ina federal indictment
yes, we all know that. We all have a problem with the fact that the cop is being charged with FELONY MURDER (as you put it). However, the point that u/NomadicKrow was making when he responded to u/exorthderp was that the ME is making a factual observation and not making a statement as to whether the cop is guilty of murder or not. So when exorthderp was saying that it was "unbelievable" that the ME ruled the death to be a homicide, its not like the ME really had any other choice. The guy didn't commit suicide. He didn't die of natural causes, disease, or old age. He didn't die due to a lightning strike. He died at the hands of another person. That's all "homicide" means. The problem lies with the DA deciding to charge the cop with murder
The point is that the ME calling it a homicide is just a factual observation. Rayshard died, and he died at the hands of another person....That's not really in dispute and it is also, ipso facto, homicide. What is in dispute is whether the cop is guilty of murder for causing his death. I'd argue he's not, but the ME calling it a homicide is just calling it what it is.
If I shoot someone who's breaking into my house, the ME will rule that a homicide...the ME doesn't have an axe to grind against me, the ME is just calling it what it is. The problem would lie in some SJW D.A. trying to nail me for murder instead of calling it a justifiable homicide.
The construction?
to list a case requires 4 justices. The current theory is that the four more conservative justices (alito, thomas, kavanaugh, gorsuch) aren't comfortable with Roberts so they aren't voting to list them just yet - because they don't want Roberts to be the swing vote who comes down against gun rights. So they keep on relisting to the next month. Remember that Roberts is a W appointee and probably swampy.
you might be thinking of The Daily Beast (may fuck be upon them)
By law if the president chooses to neither sign not veto something, then it automatically becomes law. If it passes with a 2/3 vote in both chambers, then it doesn't matter what he does
I honestly don't know what's taken her and many on the right so long with this train of thought. We value freedom so if people don't want to be part of the USA, we shouldn't force them to be. Let them leave. Take the west coast and all the coastal states north of virgina. That would probably give viable options to make both sides happy.
I kinda feel bad for him. Let's give him a round of applause to make him feel better. Everyone now, please clap
put some liquid ass into a water ballon launcher and lob it over there
oh my god the comments were gold. almost too much to keep up with
Give it up for tranny rufio at the end there!
oh God, outstanding
get rid of qualified immunity while you're at it
The guac drips far from the gauc bowl, apparently
I don't think anyone here is worshipping him as a martyr.
then why does he have a halo and murals?
I was referring to this site. I haven't seen any halos and murals on this site. I've seen it elsewhere but mostly because the people who did that are dumbasses.
yeah I lost all respect for Crenshaw when he started sponsoring red-flag confiscation laws
He knows what he's doing; he doesn't need our advice.
That's why I fully expect him to do all these things :)
I don't think anyone here is worshipping him as a martyr. He shouldn't be held up as an example of anything. But it is still possible to acknowledge that his death, wholly unconnected with his reprehensible actions 10 years ago, was due to overly aggressive police tactics/brutality. The Minneapolis PD is sketchy AF
as soon as Trump fires up the rallies again (w/in the next 2 weeks), the red pills will be flying!
I have no doubt about that! But he also needs to be able to meaningfully address all these points. Sleepy creepy low energy Joe is going to be given a shitload of cover by the media so GEOTUS needs a comprehensive way of getting out in front of this and having a strategy so comprehensive that the only way Biden can outflank him is going way far to the left and turning off those in the middle
sure, you point a gun at another person, you should expect to die. That's fair. But he wasn't killed back then and it doesn't give the police license to do what they did, 10 years later
George Floyd wasn't a good dude. But he still shouldn't have been killed by the police. It is possible to believe both that the police responded inappropriately in his case AND that the rioting/looting/violence is completely abhorrent. The left is trying to force us to align with the police when we should be condemning his death as well as the resulting violence
People want law and order. Even polls right after Floyd's death showed that. The basic requirement for a society is that there is order and citizens' rights and property are protected.
Yes, this is correct. By being law and order candidate Trump addresses the frustration/disgust with the rioting/looting. But he also needs to reach:
1.) the people who are peacefully and lawfully protesting, and
2.) the people who are now concerned about the coming economic devastation.
He can address #1.) by calling for needed police reform. This wouldn't even be all that much of a leap for him. He can paint it as being another step along his prison/CJ reform stance (i.e. when he signed the First Step Act). While the rioting and looting is the most visible part of the problem, it is still a relatively small number of the overall people invovled. There is a huge number of people who want to see reform of the police - lots of conservatives/libertarians included.
He can address #2 by being a voice of stability, lobbying companies to not leave, and showing that he's taking meaningful steps of rooting out corruption among Chicago government as well as coordinating taking truly bad violent criminals off the street.
this link has a direct link to the conference call which is quite long -(its about two paragraphs down in the story):
https://news.wttw.com/2020/06/05/what-are-we-going-have-left-our-community-aldermen-react-panic-sorrow-unrest
The call is quite long - probably 30 minutes at least, but is very eye opening
this could be a huge strategic opening for trump. Look at this...the whole city is fractured. Looting everywhere, businesses on the verge of leaving, or already leaving. aldermen frustrated at mayor. mayor cussing out aldermen. Citizens pissed beyond belief at the rioters/looters/officials.
This is where Trump can make the case "Vote for me - because what do you have to lose?" This is where he can call out the Shitcago/Illinois government for their ineptitude after decades of governance and corruption. He can reach people who are rightfully angry after seeing their community, homes, and livelihoods utterly destroyed. He can simultaneously reach them by condeming these riots, offering support to rebuild, and advocating for needed reforms to police. Those people might not like Trump, but they also know deep in their hearts right now that Trump won't play that shit we all just witnessed.
Deported for not having anything to do with Trump