Friday, April 30, 2021

Virtue signaling now a patriotic duty?

Biden: It's a "patriotic responsibility" for vaccinated people to keep wearing masks

I don't believe that President Biden quite understands that this sort of virtue signally is not considered patriotic by a large portion of our population. In fact, I would offer that many people would find it just dumb, rather than patriotic.

This is just one of those many examples where Biden is not really "reaching out" to anyone other than liberals, and in fact is attempting to shame others into following this particular liberal logic. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that suggests that vaccinated people have to wear masks. This concept only exists in the minds of the left. Just like wearing a mask while driving alone in your car or while sitting alone on a remote session video conference with world leaders. It makes no sense. 

But apparently someone told Slow Joe that it does. Perhaps Joe, Q, Murr, and Sal?

Thursday, April 29, 2021

Why the Capital Riot prosecution is a reach and why it may eventually backfire...

The main charges you will see if you look through the list of people the Government is charging in relation to the Capital Riot on January 6th.
  • "Knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so.” 18 U.S.C. §1752(a)(1).
  • "Knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.” 18 U.S.C. §1752(a)(2).
In some cases, they are simply duplicating the same charges under different statutes.
  • Utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress; 40 U.S. Code § 5104 (2)(D)
  • (parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings.40 U.S. Code § 5104 (2)(G)
Yes - it is true. There is a law against even a peaceful protest at the Capital Building (who knew) and our Federal Government is looking to charge people who are not being accused of anything violent or destructive with a Federal crime. In some cases, they are holding people without bail.

But here is the rub... none of these particular charges are anything more than a misdemeanor, and the normal sentencing for a person with no prior criminal record would be a fine with no jail time. The maximum (even for a repeat offender) is one year, which would be a fraction of that if actually served.

In order for any of this to be more than a misdemeanor is if they were carrying a firearm in the building or if they knowingly engages in an act of physical violence that results in substantial bodily harm. So far only four people were charged with having firearms and not sure that any of those people were also in the building. So these seem to be rather harmless charges for something being called by some as akin to an attempted overthrow of the Government. 

So they keep on keeping on!

The latest charge that they appear to be adding is impeding law enforcement. This charge has been added to approximately two dozen people . Yep, just like a peaceful protest at the Capital building is a crime, not following orders from law enforcement during a protest is also a crime.  If you read the charges, it's basically something that anyone, in any protest, who refuses to yield to law enforcement could be charged with.
  • Whoever commits or attempts to commit any act to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder which in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or adversely affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function—18 U.S. Code § 231 (A)(3)
This charge could be considered a class E felony (up to five years) but it opens up a whole can of worms as we look at all of the BLM and Antifa protests that are still raging in many parts of the country. If you are going to charge "some" people who otherwise were peaceful with a class E felony for obstructing or impeding law enforcement, how do you justify allowing the vast majority of violent protesters off without so much as a warning as they stand off against police and quite literally engage them physically?

Lastly, about two dozen people have the term "conspiracy" add to their charges in most part because they traveled to or otherwise participated in the event together. Now interestingly enough this is only attached to cases where there is something that might qualify as a Class E felony (because conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor has no additional penalty).  Destruction of Federal property and the before above mentioned Impeding or Interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder seem to be the underlying crimes that they "conspired" to commit. 

The reality here is that this is not just overzealous prosecution. This is quite literally legal hypocrisy as they are looking to specifically charge people in this situation where they refuse to charge others for the same (if not worse) behavior in other situations.

Either way, with the news that Officer Sicknick was not murdered and the so called bear spray assault never actually happened, this is starting to look more and more politically motivated. With Biden and the Democrats doubling down on the idea that White Supremacy and Racism is the reason for everything, eventually people will start to push back. The constant political drumbeat, cancel culture, and censorship of political speech is one thing. Holding people without bail because you don't like the reason for this protest is quite another.

Biden speech in a nutshell?

 Let's add another six trillion dollars to the national debt!

Free stuff for everyone!

Some other notes:

  • Systemic racism
  • The problem at the border is Trump's fault
  • White supremacy
  • Systemic racism
  • Wear a mask even when not needed
  • Systemic racism
  • Did I mention systemic racism?

But was it a success? Somehow Joe just seems like a 51% sort of President!

In spite of an overwhelming Democratic tilt to 
the viewership, the reaction was underwhelming

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Make sure you check out the new poll!

Who is the craziest of them all? free polls

The secret behind Dementia Joe's apparent high approval numbers....

pssssst... don't tell any liberals, but they really are not very high!

Polling Data

RCP Average4/1 - 4/27--53.142.1+11.0
CNN4/21 - 4/26RV5245+7
Economist/YouGov4/25 - 4/271219 RV5241+11
Rasmussen Reports4/25 - 4/271500 LV4850-2
Politico/Morning Consult4/24 - 4/261991 RV6037+23
Reuters/Ipsos4/21 - 4/221004 A5439+15
Marist4/19 - 4/211688 RV5444+10
ABC News/Wash Post4/18 - 4/211007 A5242+10
FOX News4/18 - 4/211002 RV5443+11
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl4/17 - 4/20790 RV5143+8
The Hill/HarrisX4/16 - 4/192881 RV6139+22
Quinnipiac4/8 - 4/121237 A4842+6
Monmouth4/8 - 4/12743 RV5343+10
CNBC4/8 - 4/11802 A4741+6
Gallup4/1 - 4/21961 A5740+17

Most recently NBC just came out with a new poll showing Joe Biden at 53% at his 100 day level among all voters and 51% with Registered voters. While this compares favorably to Donald Trump, it compares unfavorably to Barrack Obama (who was still in the 60s) and George Bush, who sat at 57%. 

Meanwhile, you see Reuters, Marist, Fox at 54%. CNN, ABC, YouGov at 52%. Rasmussen and Quinnipiac at 48%. You see many fairly unimpressive numbers for someone who seems immune from any media criticism. 

But what you do see that seems to bump up the averages are a couple of stubborn pollsters who continue to show the President up in the 60 range. Politico is one of those pollsters and a quick look at their demographic make up will tell you why. 41% Democrats, 30% Independents, and 29% Republican. If this sounds like a broken record (people complaining about polling bias) it's because it just keeps happening.

To be clear, in the last election (just a few months ago) the partisan breakdown was 37% Democrat, 36% Republican, and 26% Independent. If you were to weigh the Demographics of the Politico poll by what we just tangibly saw, the Biden approval drops to approximately 54%.  Still on the high end (mainly because Politico finds almost no Democrats who do not approve of Joe), but more in line with the other pollsters.

Remove those 60% plus polling outliers from the list, and his average RCP approval would stand at approximately 51%. Yeah, higher than Trump, but extremely low for any other President enjoying their honeymoon period. 

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

Prosecutors admit that bear spray was never actually used in Capital riot

“It does appear the bear spray that Mr. [Julian Elie] Khater was holding 10 minutes earlier was not used.”
Julian Elie Khater, 32, of State College, Pennsylvania, and George Pierre Tanios, 39, of Morgantown, West Virginia, are charged in spraying the chemical irritant at Capitol police officers Brian Sicknick and Caroline Edwards, as well as Metropolitan Police Department officer Damian Chapman. However, during the hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gilead Light acknowledged to Hogan that bear spray was never used, despite video clips presented earlier in the case.
Khater’s attorney, Joseph Tacopina, told U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan that Light did not “mention the two defendants had been doused by pepper spray administered by police moments earlier.” More from WTOP:

With 20 MPH winds that day and no actual evidence that any bear spray was actually used, it would appear to be likely that the eyes and skin irritant that certain police officers complained about was more likely than not their own pepper spray being blown back in their faces. Like it or not, there appears to be no "non-liberal logical reason" to believe that it was bear spray.

And just like that... another horrible rumor about January 6th comes to a screeching halt.

Well at least for non-liberals.

Now, of course the prosecutors in this case will not allow the lack of evidence that anyone used bear spray... they will simply move into the area of proving the "intent" to use bear spray to make their case. They plan to charge the two with "conspiracy" to commit the act that they apparently did not actually commit. 

“They prepared together, traveled together, planned together, and executed their attack, giving rise to a separate charge of conspiracy to attack law enforcement officers. This brazen, and ultimately cowardly act of spraying unprotected officers in the face while looking elsewhere speaks to the dangerousness of the defendants.”
Apparently they are simply going to both admit that it didn't happen, while providing lots of rhetoric suggesting that it did. They toss in the term "conspiracy" because of course, they "traveled together" and planned the act that didn't take place. Of course they will have no actual evidence that they "planned it either". 

But then again, what does it really matter anyways?

Given this trial will take place in Washington DC and the jury will be made up of Democrats, the prosecution could charge them with attempted first degree murder with malice and a hate crime to boot and those jurists would come likely take about 23 minutes to come back with a guilty verdict. Given the choice, they would likely look to death by hanging or possibly a firing squad.

California and New York LOSE!!!!!

What a bunch of losers!!!

there is a big L on the forehead of these two states!
Illinois, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania will all lose a single seat, extending losing streaks that date back to the years before and after World War II. Michigan will lose a seat for the fifth consecutive census. And for the first time since it joined the Union, California’s congressional delegation will shrink by one seat.

Gee... thanks a lot CDC!

So a vaccinated person with less than a 0.01% chance of catching Covid, can now jog outside without a mask!

However, children (who have a 0.0003% chance of dying of Covid) are being told that they must wear masks at all times when outside playing. Oh, and Presidents participating in a video conferences are also supposed to wear a mask, lest they catch a computer virus. Ahem.

There is a fine line between liberal "science" and insanity... and it has become mighty blurred!

Is "woke" as popular as the left believes it is?

Oscar Ratings Crater, Hit Another Record Low
Everyone knew this was coming, given how pathetic the ratings were for the Golden Globes and the Grammys, but even so, the viewership numbers are a shocking disaster for the Academy Awards broadcast. After last year’s rock-bottom viewership hit 23.6 million and the top award went to a Korean film, Parasite, the average person hadn’t even heard of, this year’s Oscars went full woke. You never go full woke . . .
Ratings crashed 58 percent off last year’s abysmal viewership, down to 9.85 million Americans. Let that sink in: In a nation of 330 million, not even ten million Americans watched the Oscars. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ strategy of embracing diversity as a supposed means to bring in younger viewers has proven a complete failure: Ratings were down even more for young adults. In the 18–49 demographic, ratings crashed 64 percent. The star power is gone. The glamour is gone. The public interest is gone.

This isn't just movies and awards shows. This is everything having to do with "celebrities" thinking it's cool to be woke. I record the "Good Doctor" as one of the few shows I still watch. Generally it will change my channel to ABC and often times I turn on my cable only to see Jimmy Kimmel starting his dialogue or interviewing a guest. I kid you not that nearly every time I see the man, he is still trying to tell Donald Trump jokes and pretty much making everything political. Perhaps that is why his ratings show that on average an abysmal 1.6  million people watch his show. 

Not that this seems to matter. Whether or not anyone watches a show, buys a product, or otherwise uses a service really seems to matter very little to the growing woke leadership of big corporations, Hollywood, and the media. Better to be on the left side of politics than to make money. Or possibly a better way of looking at it would be to argue that between money and power, that the new generation of leaders are attempting to expand the latter at the expense of the former. 

If you don't believe me, then explain why it is that while it must have become obvious to these celebrities that their injection of politics into everything has turned everyone off on them, which is why the ratings for these shows continue to plummet. Yet, they double down on their politics as if they really don't care. Perhaps they either don't look at the events for ratings (just for how much they fawn over each other). Perhaps they are blaming something else. But the reality is that most Americans are sick and tired of politics being injected into everything. 

Modern day Liberalism at it's finest

Back when I was a liberal, it stood for freedoms of thought and actions.... and conservatives were intolerant and acted like thought police...

Now liberalism is about hate!

Monday, April 26, 2021

State of Maryland is opening an "investigation" into the 17 year employment of Chauvin defense witness Dr Fowler....

Pressured by a letter signed by 431 doctors urging them to "take action" against Fowler "

The Maryland’s Attorney General’s Office said Friday it believes there should be a review of “in custody” death reports produced by the state’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner during the tenure of Dr. David Fowler, nine days after Fowler testified that an ex-Minneapolis police officer was not responsible for the death of George Floyd in police custody.

Most hated man in America

The announcement came less than 24 hours after the attorney general’s office received a letter from the former medical examiner of Washington, D.C., Roger A. Mitchell, signed by 431 doctors from around the country, saying Fowler’s testimony and conclusions were so far outside the bounds of accepted forensic practice that all his previous work could come into question.

To be clear, Doctor Fowler testified to almost the exact same thing as the Hennepin County Medical Examiner had written in his autopsy report. If this was so out of the boundaries of accepted forensic practice, apparently the largest county in Minnesota also has an incompetent medical examiner who needs to be replaced.

The reality is that this has nothing to do with proper testimony. This has to do with whether or not a doctor is allowed to testify in defense of the most hated man in America. 

Now the "science" and "data" in all of this lends itself to Doctors Baker and Fowler. Science and physics suggest that it would take well over 200 pounds of pressure on the back of a normal sized person to cause asphyxia. General physics suggests that at 140 pounds and four pressure points (two feet planted on the ground and two shin/knees on two places on the back) Chauvin could not have applied anything close to to that force.

Moreover, statistically a normal person under stress would be about 800,000 times more likely to die from an arrest due to heart disease than positional asphyxia.  Statistically a person with high levels of Fentanyl would be about 8000 times more likely to die from an Opioid overdose than from positional asphyxia. Not to mention that the only person to physically examine the body testified under oath that there were no physical signs of asphyxia and multiple signs associated with arrest associated with high levels of opioids.

Now you can certainly disagree with Doctors Baker and Fowlers for following the science, trusting the examination, and going with the overwhelmingly statistically favorable viewpoint. But to make the claim that the former President of the National Association of Medical Examiners can no longer be trusted past, present, or future to provide a medical opinion?

Seems a little out of touch with reality... but in touch with the politics of this. Make no mistake, this is just the cancel culture at it's finest (or worst depending on viewpoint)!

Latest on Covid

Now approximately 175,000 deaths under Joe Biden (30% of all deaths)

He had a plan to stop Covid in it's tracks

Now obviously everyone had assumed that with a vaccine being pushed out at 2-3 million people a day, with all of the people previously infected (and therefore would have anti-bodies) that we would be seeing a massive drop in cases and deaths. But we are still seeing 50,000 or more new cases and hundreds of deaths a day. 

Not that I am "blaming" Joe Biden, anymore than I "blamed" Donald Trump. What this points out very factually is that Joe Biden did not have a plan and we are not as far along as most people would have expected based on the rate of vaccinations. All this means is that there was never really any silver bullet here. The virus is going to do what the virus is going to do.

I am guessing liberals will say that this is not a real Capital building.


Sunday, April 25, 2021

Ever notice that facts drive liberals crazy?

A Troubled Rule of Law
Inflammatory rhetoric poured forth from every institution in the country—from the presidency, Congress, corporations, law firms, banks, tech companies, academia, and the public school system. The mainstream media pounded home the narrative about unchanging black oppression. And even after the verdict, the White House (perhaps that name will be gone in another year) and the press have doubled down on the systemic racism conceit, despite the coordinated effort to convict among Minnesota’s public officials and the state’s most prestigious members of the private bar.

In 2020, the police fatally shot 18 allegedly unarmed blacks (unarmed being defined extremely loosely to include suspects grabbing an officer’s gun or fleeing in a car with a loaded pistol on the seat). That represents 0.2 percent of all blacks who died of homicide in 2020, and an infinitesimal percentage of the 40 million blacks in the U.S. If the police ended all fatal shootings tomorrow, it would have a negligible effect on the black death-by-homicide rate, which is 13 times higher than the white death-by-homicide rate for decedents between the ages of ten and 43.

Over 8600 blacks were murdered in 2020 according to reports, this was an increase of over a thousand from 2019. Approximately 90% of those murders were committed by other blacks. Moreover, only 18 of them were the sort of unarmed black man police shooting that had led to the largest social unrest probably in most of our life times. Nobody riots, loots, or lashes out over the two dozen daily killings. Rather they turn their ire on those unarmed black person police shootings, which takes place about once every three weeks, and is almost aways deemed to be warranted under the circumstances.

Yet, to listen to the rhetoric, the average black person cannot walk outside their doors without fearing for their lives. Not from the two dozen daily random murders committed at the hands of other black people, but from the police. Nobody bothers to point out that 99% of  those police shootings take place during police calls and criminal apprehension. Nobody bothers to point out that nearly every instance involved someone choosing on their own to resist arrest. Nope. Just rhetoric to drive emotions.  Moreover, this is amplified all the way to the top, by our commander in chief who either is just as blind to the facts or sees it as a political calculation. 

Yet President Joe Biden took the occasion of the conviction to recycle his favorite “white supremacy” themes from his allegedly “unifying” inaugural speech and campaign rhetoric. Biden said from the White House. The “summer of protest” had sent the message, according to Biden: “Enough. Enough. Enough of the senseless killings.”

Biden was not referring to the senseless killing of seven-year-old Jaslyn Adams, gunned down in a Chicago McDonald’s over the weekend. He was not referring to the four dozen black children who were killed last year in their beds, front porches, back porches, at barbecues and family birthday parties, and in their parents’ cars. He was not referring to the dozens of blacks killed every day in drive-by shootings—more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined—even though blacks are only 12 percent of the nation’s population. Those thousands of black deaths get no attention from the Black Lives Matter movement and its most fervent press acolytes because the homicide perpetrators are other blacks, not the police or whites.

The only thing senseless in all of this is the fact the people like Joe Biden and others simply refuse to look at the true cause of violence in the black community. Has the rioting led to a safer environment for blacks? To the contrary, there are now approximately 100 more monthly murders than there had been in 2019. If you don't believe that this has much to do with these riots and police officers no longer wanting to respond to calls for fear that they might have to engage a black criminal and put them in a position to lose their job or even their freedom if force is required, then you are out to lunch.

Sorry liberals, but those are the inconvenient facts here. I understand the "facts" are a frustrating thing for liberals to handle. But until we address the "facts" rather than the rhetoric, none of this will ever be resolved. Of course, we can't assume that liberals and their black race baiters actually want to see any of this resolved. But that is a whole other topic of discussion.

Sunday Funnies

Saturday, April 24, 2021

Some real facts about race and culture...


Alternate Juror speaks out...

Concerned about rioting and personal safety

I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.

Believed local MMA fighter Donald Williams did good job of explaining blood choke hold?

Determined that former President of National Association of Medical Examiners was not believable? 

She discussed that Tobin was the medical expert that she trusted because he broke it down to a level she understood and walked them through the process. For me, the manner in which Tobin walked through the process without ever explaining how he could possibly "know" much of what he claimed (levels of Oxygen, CO, heart rate, etc...) made me actually less trustful of his testimony. So ironically the very thing that made him believable to this juror (and one would assume other jurors) was what made me suspicious. 

Moreover, there was no explanation in her notes as to why she felt Fowler was not believable, but she did mention in her interview that the experts collectively were basically saying the same thing, so it would appear that she found Fowler to be "outnumbered" and therefore not believable. This, of course, is why cumulative testimony is generally not allowed and why Nelson objected to many of these witnesses as duplicate or cumulative. The fact that the Judge continued to allow such cumulative testimony would generally be grounds for an appeal. But there is no way that any Minnesota court will uphold an appeal and force the state to go through another trial. 

It also makes you wonder if the problems with some of the other defense witnesses played a part in that. At least one of these witnesses apparently backed out because he feared for his own safety. Something that was not without merit considering Barry Brood's old house (his address on file) was decorated with a combination of pig blood and pig head. Both Eric Nelson the defense attorney and Eric Nelson the local family law attorney have received death threats.

Ultimately the juror referred to the video and repeated the debunked rhetoric that Chauvin's knee was "on the neck" for so long. That was not even an argument made by the prosecution's own use of force witnesses, who admitted that the bulk of the weight of Chauvin was on the back. But it tells you how powerful first impressions and ad nauseum media and politically driven narratives are almost impossible to overcome. Or in this case literally impossible. 

Tale of two headlines?

Biden's remarkable success on climate

So what gives?
By every standard, President Joe Biden's climate change summit was a remarkable success. With great diplomatic dexterity, Biden and climate envoy John Kerry assembled world leaders representing 82% of world carbon emissions, 73% of the world population and 86% of world economic output to commit to bold climate action.

Well not exactly by "every standard"

Joe Biden Makes an Absolute Clown of Himself on the International Stage

Biden appeared in a Zoom call with other international leaders, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping. This was a moment to show American power and greatness. Instead, Biden stumbled his way through wearing a mask, the only person on the call to do so.

Taking the focus off the ridiculous notion that a vaccinated person alone in a room cannot attend a zoom meeting without wearing a mask, what was the real story in regards to the Climate change Zoom meeting? 

Well according to the CNN analyst who fails to even fathom the possibility that anyone might see anything remotely negative about the Zoom meeting, this was a "breakthrough" where the old man mumbling from behind a mask "deftly" sold everyone on a "bold path" for a "powerful consensus"  on something to do with Climate change change?  The analysts admits that critics will say they have heard this all before, but she "swears this time it is different". She then goes on, not to explain what agreements were actually made (there were none), but rather runs us down on the latest in climate change propaganda. The argument wasn't so much what was agreed upon (again there was nothing). The argument was that this time they "must" come together, because the science is now really settled, not just sort of settled like before. 

Critics obviously took issue with what is being seen as American weakness since Trump stepped aside. We have seen international aggression increasing every month and there just seems to be a growing lack of respect for America in general. The concept that our President (already seen as feeble, old, and spineless) comes out wearing a mask, like he is afraid of catching something over the internet, is one of either ridiculousness or weakness. Take your pick. One has to assume that he believes he is setting an example. But obviously it is an example that the rest of the world rejects. 

The truth is that on the international stage world leaders couldn't give a hoot about American liberalism and the liberal culture that some are attempting to push on everyone. If the left seriously believes that Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un is somehow impressed with virtue signally, then this is why they cannot be take seriously.  Strong armed dictators (or Presidents behaving as dictators) care very little about being woke, being polite on Twitter, or anything that the left seems to believe drives the collective conscious of the entire world. We have adversarial relations with many other countries on this planet. We will not win them over with virtue signaling. In fact we might never "win them over" with anything other than a resounding show of strength and force.

Slow Joe shows true leadership (for the woke)!

What? Other world leaders don't understand how to virtue signal? 

Friday, April 23, 2021

Why tell the truth when a narrative is better?

NBC’s Lester Holt Urges Journalists to Ditch Objectivity: ‘Fairness Is Overrated’

Thursday, April 22, 2021

Isn't this just so true!


Police officer fired for making anonymous donation to Kyle Rittenhouse

This is getting more than a bit out of control

Sgt. William Kelly, the second highest-ranking official in the Norfolk Police Department’s internal affairs division, has been fired for making an anonymous donation to the defense fund for Kyle Rittenhouse. The donation (revealed after a security breach of the Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo was accompanied by a note saying that Rittenhouse did “nothing wrong.” Despite the obvious attack on free speech and associational rights, there has been little concern raised in the media or by legal experts. 
Two days ago, a reporter in Utah went to the home of a paramedic to confront him on why he made a $10 donation of Rittenhouse, who is accused of killing two people during violent protests last summer in Wisconsin. 
Kelly is an 18-year veteran of the department. He made an anonymous donation and was not publicly speaking as an officer. He included a note “God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong.”
Norfolk City Manager Chip Filer said in a statement that Police Chief Larry Boon agreed the officer violated city and departmental policies against “egregious comments.”

Between the doxing and the cancel culture, this whole thing is out of control. Since when is it egregious for someone to donate to a defense fund and believe someone is innocent until proven guilty. Especially to someone who appears to have a fairly legitimate argument that he was acting in self defense. More to the point, people who are handling the donations say that police officers made up a pretty big portion of the donations, most of it coming anonymously.

More alarming is that this officer was fired without any review, investigation, or change to be part of any dialogue. 

The underlying issue here is that there is a huge disconnect between your top city brass, police chiefs versus the rank and file police. I promise you that the other police officers were not embarrassed, thought the comments created a loss of respect, or that they were egregious in any manner, shape, or form. That is the opinions of the politicians who oversee things from a high level administrative capacity. 

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

How the prosecutors "snookered" the court system regarding Chauvin.

Take a little time to read through these.

(1) commits an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or (2) intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another. 

(1) Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

(2) violates section 609.224 and causes the death of another or causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable,

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting


So in the simplest terms, a misdemeanor assault can turn into a felony assault if the end result includes substantial bodily harm, even if there is not an intent to inflict that harm.  To take it one step further, a simple misdemeanor assault can turn into first degree manslaughter if the end result is death of the victim, even if there is not an intent to kill.

Based on the argument of the prosecution Derek Chauvin knee to the back was assault. Jerry Blackwell went so far as to explain to the jury that it didn't matter that Chauvin might not have intended to inflict any bodily harm, Chauvin "intended" to put his knee on Floyd's back and that provided enough to prove necessary intent and prove assault. A wrong interpretation of the statute, but par for the course.

Now here is where it gets clever. Had the State introduced first degree manslaughter as a charge, then the logic (as applied by Blackwell) would have fallen under the umbrella of Chauvin committing an assault, with the unintended consequence of that assault being the death of George Floyd. This is textbook manslaughter.

But by not introducing First Degree Manslaughter, they instead simply made the argument that the unintended consequence of the knee to the back (simple misdemeanor assault) was substantial bodily harm, rather than death. They don't ever argue what that substantial injury (other than the actual death was) but what does that matter?

They go on to argue that the substantial bodily harm  now make the "misdemeanor assault" a "felony assault" and that the unintended consequences of that "felony assault" was death, and therefore second degree murder. 

The bootstrap argument.

While this is clever, for all practical purposes it would render the concept of first degree manslaughter stemming from assault to be obsolete. Obviously a prosecutor could argue that every assault that leads to death could be considered at some point in time prior to death to be a felony assault. After all, there has be great bodily harm administered almost by definition for someone to have died from an assault. 

The fact that prosecution argued that intent didn't matter would make the first degree manslaughter even less viable. Every assault that leads to death regardless of intent would be second degree murder rather than manslaughter.

Now some may argue that every assault that leads to death should be murder rather than manslaughter. Hey, whatever blows your hair back. But that is not the law here in Minnesota or anywhere else for that matter. Either way, the prosecution just made a mockery of our laws, and Judge Cahill was either a victim of or an accessory to this mocking. 
Bottom Line: The manner in which they argued the facts here was a classic first degree manslaughter argument. But they chose not to charge him with it. Likely because that was the law that best fit their case, and they were desperate for a murder charge.  By eliminating it, they bet that the jury would not be willing to hand down a simple second degree manslaughter charge because of the charged political nature of the case. Obviously they bet correctly.  

No Black Lives do not matter to liberals... politics matters to liberals

The effects of Black Lives Matter protests
From 2014 to 2019, Campbell tracked more than 1,600 BLM protests across the country, largely in bigger cities, with nearly 350,000 protesters. His main finding is a 15 to 20 percent reduction in lethal use of force by police officers — roughly 300 fewer police homicides — in census places that saw BLM protests.

Campbell’s research also indicates that these protests correlate with a 10 percent increase in murders in the areas that saw BLM protests. That means from 2014 to 2019, there were somewhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more homicides than would have been expected if places with protests were on the same trend as places that did not have protests. Campbell’s research does not include the effects of last summer’s historic wave of protests because researchers do not yet have all the relevant data…
Omar Wasow, a professor at Princeton University who has done seminal research on the effect of protests, told Vox that the results are “entirely plausible” and “not surprising,” considering existing protest research.

So in effect, because the protests and BLM movement, there were approximately 300 lives saved from police homicides, but somewhere between 1000-6000 more murders overall. So these protests and riots and the political fallout accounted for somewhere between 700-5700 more black people dead. 

So the issue really isn't about saving lives and it never has been. It's about exploiting "certain" lives for the sake political posturing and ignoring the deaths of the vast majority of black people because it is inconvenient or otherwise detrimental to the cause.

It reminds me of the Animal House scene were Niedermeyer is berating Flounder on the football field, and Otter and Boone make the argument while practicing their golf swings that he cannot do that to their pledges, only they can do that to their pledges.

By the same principle, it's much better to see thousands of black people dead at the hands of other black people than to see a fraction of blacks being killed by police. The classic cutting of your own nose to spite your face. This makes no sense to me, but I guess that is one of the many reasons that I find the BLM movement to be more destructive than helpful and why I don't support it as it currently stands in real practice. 

Don't get me wrong. The "concept" is certainly not a problem. It just doesn't seem to be run in any manner that has any semblance of logic. 

Next time someone gives you that classic hypothetical that people would react differently if it was a white person that was killed by the police...

Go ahead and agree with them - it's not hypothetical

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

Something to ponder...

This about sums it up...

Verdict is in...

That was quick for a four count verdict with this many questions. 

(nothing like a delay to let the crowd grow and become even more hostile)

No doubt that everyone was in lock step on this one from the start. Since we can start with the premise that at least some of the jurors were predisposed to a guilty verdict, it would have taken longer than a few hours to go through everything and then convince anyone to change their mind. 

So I would assume a guilty verdict on murder three and possibly even murder two. No way is this an acquittal this early in the process. But that is just my opinion. Some may argue the opposite.

As noted by Blanca at Legal Insurrection... there was not a single question or note was sent to the Judge. Not even on the question of causation.  Zero clarifications on the various laws. This is unusual for any trial, much less a trial with this much medical and procedural information provided. Possibly the biggest trial since O.J. Simpson, and they figured they knew everything that they needed to know and had no questions?

So it can be crystal clear that the jury is not actually considering the facts or the issues raised in this case. If I had to guess, the prosecution's attack on the defense credibility and their redefining of the jury instructions probably played a part... as least as much as it provided the excuse to find the verdict that they came to deliver.

This is a 2021 human sacrifice to appease the mob. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Experts split on Chauvin case... to some degree

However, I have not found anyone who suggests the state has proven murder

While everyone seems to fudge a bit on what they believe the jury will ultimately do the majority of the pundits I have been following believe that the State did not prove any of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The two exceptions are former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy and my Powerline namesake Scott Johnson. Both feel that the prosecution made a good enough argument to convince them that Chauvin committed manslaughter. 

The first issue I ultimately take with McCarthy is his assertion pretty early on that the state had, without a doubt, settled the concept of cause of death. That assertion was made immediately following the Martin Tobin and William Smock testimony and McCarthy has not broached the subject since. To draw that conclusion prior to the defense presenting their case seems in poor legal taste considering McCarthy was an attorney who prosecuted cases. He should at least pretend to have an open mind.

The second issue I take with McCarthy is that he appears to be applying a normal negligence manslaughter charge to the culpable negligence that we have in Minnesota. It is not a difference without a distinction, although many pundits seem to be treating it this way. To the degree that it is different is largely a matter of intent, but again, these are murky waters and how the jury looks at culpable negligence might not be the way it is defined in the statutes. 

That being said, obviously both McCarthy and Johnson feel that Chauvin was responsible for the death of Floyd. Both of these pundits obviously went to intent and both found enough there to warrant the manslaughter charge. However, neither found the mens rea required to go to murder.

On the flip side Andrew Branca is the legal expert I have been following most closely since his analysis has been more detailed and informative. It's not just a daily or every other day sort of deal. He provides daily transcripts (with comments) and at least once a day provides a recap or analysis. He is one of those who believes that the State has not proven any of the charges, but is uncertain as to what the jury will do.


Up until this weekend I was pretty convinced that the best the State could hope for was Manslaughter and I wasn't convinced that everyone on the jury would even be on board with that. But after recent events, the manner in which the jury must have been exposed to recent violence along with some gut feelings I get from watching the jury instructions and closing arguments, I am not so sure. I could certainly see a murder conviction based purely on fear of what happens from any other verdict.

The instructions "seemed" unbiased and objective, but not terribly specific. But even as the defense and prosecution disagreed in closing as to what they meant, the Judge refused to really "clarify" either way and instead he just reread the instructions without clarification. According to Branca, that might be intentional because some of these things are currently still tied up in court (such as the third degree charge). Branca suggested that the Judge either didn't know or didn't want to come across as playing sides. Either way, that leaves a lot of leeway for jurors to become obscured by the arguments about these instructions. 

What the law is should not be something that the jurors have to argue during deliberations. That needs to be provided very specifically for them, and it should be done by the judge. Hopefully they rely 100% on what is written in those instructions and disregard the attorney's  own interpretations, which in some cases were loose interpretations if not outright misrepresentations. At the end of the day, this trial involved a lot of loose interpretations and outright misrepresentations, and these happened on both sides. It's going to be difficult for the jury to sort through everything and feel that they are making an objective call on objective facts.