The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 94K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
We can disagree about whether or not murder charges should have been brought, but we can agree that the cases, despite significant similarities, were treated much differently, locally and federally.
Click to expand...
Sure. I also think the main reasons why are pretty obvious - (1) the Floyd incident was filmed live and spread via social media almost instantly, which was not the case for the Timpa incident, and (2) the Floyd incident happened at a time when there was already a lot of national discussion and passion about the treatment of minorities (especially African-American men) by the police.
 
rodoheel said:
Sure. I also think the main reasons why are pretty obvious - (1) the Floyd incident was filmed live and spread via social media almost instantly, which was not the case for the Timpa incident, and (2) the Floyd incident happened at a time when there was already a lot of national discussion and passion about the treatment of minorities (especially African-American men) by the police.
Click to expand...
I agree. Legally speaking, those two differences shouldn't matter, right?
 
ZenMode said:
I understand how it technically played out in the justice system. I'm saying that the justice system is flawed. People like OJ Simpson are not convicted. People who are generally considered to be attractive get convicted at a lower rate. I've seen research that shows convictions are more likely in the morning for suspects who are appearing in front of a judge. Jurors are human and flawed.

The George Floyd and Tony Timpa situations are basically identical. Two suspects, both on drugs and both died while police were restraining them by kneeling on them, yet the legal outcome for the officers involved was significantly different.
Click to expand...
Yes. It is not a perfect system. Innocent people sometimes are convicted. But everyone who requests a jury trial gets one. There is an appeal process.
It's very easy for a layperson with their own biases and opinions to second-guess a jury's decision. But the jury actually heard the evidence and had the opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses firsthand. Then they met together in the jury room to review and discuss all the evidence before reaching their verdict.
I can absolutely guarantee that Derek Chauvin received a much fairer trial than the majority of criminal defendants, especially those who could not afford to retain private counsel and had a court-appointed attorney.
I'm also reasonably sure that your opinion on what the outcome should have been is exactly what the defense argued.
 
ZenMode said:
I agree. Legally speaking, those two differences shouldn't matter, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would agree that legally speaking, those things shouldn't make a difference. (To be clear, I also think there are other factual differences in the scenarios that may or may not have made a legal difference had the cops in the Timpa case been prosecuted - such as Timpa called the cops himself and said that he was in some sort of mental distress, and that Timpa's cause of death was at least partially attributed to cocaine.) That doesn't mean that it is somehow misleading or incorrect to use the term "murder" when applied to George Floyd. Telling people they are wrong for using the term "murder" in that case is silly.
 
rodoheel said:
Yes, I would agree that legally speaking, those things shouldn't make a difference. (To be clear, I also think there are other factual differences in the scenarios that may or may not have made a legal difference had the cops in the Timpa case been prosecuted - such as Timpa called the cops himself and said that he was in some sort of mental distress, and that Timpa's cause of death was at least partially attributed to cocaine.) That doesn't mean that it is somehow misleading or incorrect to use the term "murder" when applied to George Floyd. Telling people they are wrong for using the term "murder" in that case is silly.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the calling the police yourself would be a meaningful factor when deciding if charges should be filed.

Timpa - police kneeled on for 14 minutes - cocaine contributed to death
Floyd - police kneeled on for 9(?) minutes - fentanyl contributed to death

In both cases, police were following approved procedures for restraining a someone.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't believe the calling the police yourself would be a meaningful factor when deciding if charges should be filed.

Timpa - police kneeled on for 14 minutes - cocaine contributed to death
Floyd - police kneeled on for 9(?) minutes - fentanyl contributed to death

In both cases, police were following approved procedures for restraining a someone.
Click to expand...
I disagree on the first point. Asking the police to come restrain you and being involuntarily restrained by the police (over, mind you, a non-violent and fairly insignificant alleged crime) are not the same situation. The police in the Timpa case could credibly say they thought they were helping him. Chauvin and the other officers in the Floyd case could not say that.

As to the cause of death - according to Wikipedia the Timpa autopsy said that he died from "cocaine and the stress associated with physical restraint" (emphasis is mine) while the initial Floyd autopsy said that he died from "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" but noted that things like "'recent methamphetamine use' and 'fentanyl intoxication' - along with hypertension and coronary artery disease" - were "possible contributing factors to his death" but not causes of his death. (An independent autopsy rejected the existence of contributing factors.) In other words, no, the cause of death was not the same in both cases, at least based on the autopsy findings; one guy was choked to death by law enforcement while the other guy died from a combination of cocaine and stress.

Also, I can't speak to Timpa, but a number of experts have said unequivocally that Chauvin was not properly restraining Floyd, either in method or duration of his application of force.
 
rodoheel said:
And the response to that, IMO, is that murder charges should have been filed in the Timpa case (where the family did succeed in a wrongful death suit, just like in the OJ case) not that murder charges should not have been filed in the Floyd case.
Click to expand...
Tony Timpa was killed in Texas, right? The charges against the officers were dropped in 2019. So Texas gives free rein to cops, I guess. That has nothing to do with George Floyd. Zen is so full of shit, always
 
ZenMode said:
I don't believe the calling the police yourself would be a meaningful factor when deciding if charges should be filed.

Timpa - police kneeled on for 14 minutes - cocaine contributed to death
Floyd - police kneeled on for 9(?) minutes - fentanyl contributed to death

In both cases, police were following approved procedures for restraining a someone.
Click to expand...
Since you are obviously the expert on police procedure, please point to the portion of the police manual that says kneeling on someone’s neck for 10-15 minutes is standard operating procedure.
 
rodoheel said:
I disagree on the first point. Asking the police to come restrain you and being involuntarily restrained by the police (over, mind you, a non-violent and fairly insignificant alleged crime) are not the same situation. The police in the Timpa case could credibly say they thought they were helping him. Chauvin and the other officers in the Floyd case could not say that.

As to the cause of death - according to Wikipedia the Timpa autopsy said that he died from "cocaine and the stress associated with physical restraint" (emphasis is mine) while the initial Floyd autopsy said that he died from "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" but noted that things like "'recent methamphetamine use' and 'fentanyl intoxication' - along with hypertension and coronary artery disease" - were "possible contributing factors to his death" but not causes of his death. (An independent autopsy rejected the existence of contributing factors.) In other words, no, the cause of death was not the same in both cases, at least based on the autopsy findings; one guy was choked to death by law enforcement while the other guy died from a combination of cocaine and stress.
Click to expand...
I think you're parsing wikipedia too finely. I'm not sure the editing process can support that type of fine distinction, because it's not really a point in controversy.

The obvious retort to Zen's bullshit is the one you have already made: he was convicted by a jury; he appealed all the way to Minn Supreme Court, and at each step his conviction was unanimously upheld; and the US Supreme Court declined to review the case with zero dissents.

So basically everyone knowledgeable who has seen this case found that Chauvin was guilty of murder.

Who fucking cares what Texas does?
 
rodoheel said:
I disagree on the first point. Asking the police to come restrain you and being involuntarily restrained by the police (over, mind you, a non-violent and fairly insignificant alleged crime) are not the same situation. The police in the Timpa case could credibly say they thought they were helping him. Chauvin and the other officers in the Floyd case could not say that.

As to the cause of death - according to Wikipedia the Timpa autopsy said that he died from "cocaine and the stress associated with physical restraint" (emphasis is mine) while the initial Floyd autopsy said that he died from "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" but noted that things like "'recent methamphetamine use' and 'fentanyl intoxication' - along with hypertension and coronary artery disease" - were "possible contributing factors to his death" but not causes of his death. (An independent autopsy rejected the existence of contributing factors.) In other words, no, the cause of death was not the same in both cases, at least based on the autopsy findings; one guy was choked to death by law enforcement while the other guy died from a combination of cocaine and stress.

Also, I can't speak to Timpa, but a number of experts have said unequivocally that Chauvin was not properly restraining Floyd, either in method or duration of his application of force.
Click to expand...
"one guy was choked to death by law enforcement"

He had an enlarged heart, was on meth and fentanyl AND he was complaining about not being able to breathe before he was even put on the ground.

We aren't going to agree, which is fine. I'm going to let this go to avoid derailing even more....
 
ZenMode said:
In both cases, police were following approved procedures for restraining a someone.
Click to expand...

Lt. Johnny Mercil, who has been in charge of teaching the use of force in the Minneapolis Police Department's training division, says former officer Derek Chauvin's use of his knee on George Floyd's neck is not a technique the police teach when instructing officers how to restrain people.

Displaying a photo of Chauvin holding his knee on Floyd's neck and looking up at a bystander, prosecutor Steven Schleicher asked Mercil, "Is this an MPD-trained neck restraint?" "No sir," Mercil replied.

He added that a "knee on the neck would be something that does happen in the use of force that is not unauthorized."

Minneapolis police policy bars the use of neck restraints in any situation where a person is not "actively resisting," Mercil said. The policy also requires officers to keep the subject under "close observation" after applying a neck restraint.
 
ZenMode said:
tenor.gif
Click to expand...
My question still stands.

Where in police procedure does it state kneeling on someone’s neck for 10 minutes, well after the point they’ve stopped struggling, is standard?

You are a piece of shit and you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
 
ZenMode said:
lol... WaynetheDrain is by far the biggest dick here... but I'll control myself.
Click to expand...
When I become frustrated during conversations with ignorant fuckbags, I do become a dick. Character flaw I guess. If you want me to be nicer to you, how about stop commenting on shit you know nothing about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top