As we approach riot season, we learn that the some guy named Ken told the Washington post that the insurrection originally planned for March 4th, has been rescheduled for March 20th. Meanwhile the US capitol is enclosed with a fence and national guard troops are still stationed in DC. But we know that fences and walls don't work, don't we?
Meanwhile, here in flyover country, the city of Minneapolis is fortifying the courthouse, hiring (then not hiring internet influences), and is desperately short of cops as we count down the days to the Chauvin trial. Of course, people are protesting the fortification of the courthouse, I suspect that the overlap between theses folks and the post trial protesters is pretty significant. As in DC the national guard is gearing up for an indefinite period.
I look forward to the post Chauvin verdict riots being characterized as another "right wing insurrection" by some. Of course, the fact that the 5th police precinct is impossible to access for the citizens of MPLS, and the piles of burned out structural steel sit, untouched from last summer, is also a right wing plot of some sort.
In all seriousness. The chances of Chauvin being convicted of murder, seem to be virtually zero. The chances of him being convicted of manslaughter are higher, although not certain. The reality is that anything less than a 2nd degree murder conviction will likely see more fires in MPLS. Fires lit and stoked by the political left. What's kind of strange, is that an attempt to influence/subvert/overthrow the workings of the justice system won't be labeled as an insurrection, yet a couple of hundred idiots in costumes continues to be.
Is justice under the threat of violence really justice?
Because there might be some confusion, I'm adding the relevant MN law.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.
Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.
Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(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; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.
609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:
(1) intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that the crying of a child does not constitute provocation;
(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, and murder in the first or second degree was not committed thereby;
(3) intentionally causes the death of another person because the actor is coerced by threats made by someone other than the actor's coconspirator and which cause the actor reasonably to believe that the act performed by the actor is the only means of preventing imminent death to the actor or another;
(4) proximately causes the death of another, without intent to cause death by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V; or
(5) causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.377 (malicious punishment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
As used in this section, a "person of ordinary self-control" does not include a person under the influence of intoxicants or a controlled substance.
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.
3 comments:
Speaking of riot season. I have to applaud the bravery of the DFL Congressman who sat out on the capitol steps, surrounded by barriers and national guard troops, waiting for the insurrection that was never going to happen.
This trial will not end well. Say what you might about Chauvin's history or reputation, but the question is a simple one: Did his actions result in the death of George Floyd? It is crystal clear that the race-hustlers demand the answer be "Yes!" as opposed to the hustlers demanding the truth.
Truth hasn't the value one would think it should when these types of cases present themselves. The race-hustlers, white guilt lefties and other reprobates must have everyone believe racism is behind every death of every black person ever. How better to abdicate personal responsibility for one's own behavior or one's own community than to deflect to some fantasy of the racist cop?
The restraint technique used by Chauvin was a legal technique at the time he employed it on Floyd. It was later prohibited as a result of this case, yet why should it have been? It was taught to cops because it's a non-lethal technique. To ban any technique because a suspect died would render every form of restraint...every form of law enforcement really...unlawful should a suspect die in the course of events. If this technique is non-lethal, then it really doesn't matter how long Floyd was pinned to the ground because of it. If he was restrained by a non-lethal technique, he was not under any threat. Thus, if he died while so restrained, there was some other cause (in this case, too much drugs in his system). We know his breathing wasn't impaired by the technique because he was able to speak and was complaining he couldn't breathe well before being restrained in that manner.
All of the above and more would suggest to the objective observer that Chauvin cannot be convicted of murder or any other charge related to the death of Floyd. But that won't fly to the race-hustlers who demand that Floyd was murdered. Get that? They must first demand that he was murdered in order to demand that Chauvin be convicted. If the evidence and expert testimony show that Floyd was a dead man walking regardless of what Chauvin did, they cannot convict Chauvin of wrongdoing.
But we can't have that. Screw the evidence. We must have our fantasy of racist cops believed and those who break the law (particularly black people) must be absolved of wrongdoing because they'd never have been arrested if it wasn't that all cops are racist.
Board up your businesses.
Most of the businesses in the riot zone are still boarded up from last summer, or have been boarded up in preparation for the trial.
Strangely no one I’ve seen on the left seems to find this problematic. This notion that it’s perfectly normal to prepare for left wing protesters by boarding up business, and putting up barriers. It’s essentially (as with the slogan) a standing threat to the community. A reminder that if they don’t get their way, they’ll destroy more stuff.
The probability is that the jurors will be pressured by the looming threat of left wing violence and convict on something in the hopes of throwing a bone to the left. Strangely this crude, strong arming of the justice system isn’t seen as an insurrection by the left.
If he’s convicted, I suspect it’ll be overturned on appeal due to what’s essentially jury tampering.
Post a Comment