Curfews are one thing, but now I'm even more concerned today after watching and reading more. Like I mentioned, more lax policing certainly increases the risk of more damage and potential death in the short term, but I can't help but witness our abilities to organize and assemble eroding away with how protests across the country are being squelched by law enforcement. It's disturbing stuff.

This post was edited by ThatAlex on Jun 4 2020 10:18pm

It just may be that the folks not protesting are afraid for their livelihood, their children, and want this protesting/rioting stopped.

/e Especially, since every day it seems more and more likely, that this outrage is not about George Floyd dying, but rather about hating police officers.
All of them, the good and the bad.

I mean look at the three pics above. This isn't about someone dying. White kid in TX dies, and no one cares. Retired police officer shot by black man, no one cares.


This is more like anarchism, than a protest for any reasonable purpose.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 4 2020 10:25pm

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/501270-twitter-removes-trump-campaign-tribute-to-george-floyd-claiming-copyright

twitter isn’t interested in peace

dorsey and the rest of twitter’s controlling interest are the epitome of pale pasty privileged lefty anti-American anti-humanity scum

This post was edited by excellence on Jun 4 2020 10:34pm

Prosecutors bringing criminal charges they know are inapplicable or unsubstantiated while giving a case blatantly unfair and inequal treatment is a violation of due process, especially one in which public hostility towards a defendant would prejudice a trial. Take it to its maxim, lets say the state prosecutors ran around charging random people they don't like with completely fabricated crimes with no basis. They go and announce they're charging you with three counts of criminal blasphemy out of vengeance because you beat them in a game of cribbage once. That's a clear cut case of malicious prosecution, a violation of the 4th and 14th amendments. Search and seizure without probable cause, and equal protection of law.
An example of precedent would be Winfrey v. Rogers in 2018. It concerned the case of a 16 year old who was imprisoned for 2 years awaiting trial on murder charges after the police and prosecutors used false statements and material omissions to fabricate charges against him, not merely negligence or differing opinions towards the law but an intentional persecutory act of malicious prosecution. He was then acquitted in 29 minutes of jury deliberations. He sued for malicious prosecution and the 5th upheld it under the 4th amendment theory.

If the prosecutors are knowingly and intentionally violating their responsibility to conduct fair due process, they're violating the constitution.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 4 2020 10:49pm

The only charge I've seen that you could even make an argument has no basis is second degree murder. Third degree is dependent on the jury, and manslaughter is a shoe-in for this case. Even then, it depends on what can be proven about the cop's mindset. Hardly something to get up in arms about for a constitutional violation.

It's pretty routine to "throw the book at them" at first and take charges down as more evidence comes out or it's clear that certain charges won't stick. If what you are saying is a due process violation then we have due process violations pretty much every day in America and it's routine practice.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 4 2020 10:50pm

gotta give The Hill back at least a smidge of all the respect they lost after bringing knives out for solomon, when I read this;

Heck no its actually extremely unusual for charges to come after evidence, and I'd say that rushing charges ahead of the normal investigative process has had any reasonable time at all, would be a constitutional violation in and of itself.
Usually charges come months after all the evidence is in, giving plenty of time not just to know all the facts of the case but determine the full extent of how the law applies to it.
Its not routine for prosecutors to throw charges at a wall in shotgun fashion and see what sticks.

Mike Freeman all but admitted he was rushing the case irregardless of the facts just to appease the mob, while with Ellison you just have to assume bad faith unless proven otherwise. Heck, weren't even sure what prosecutor they wanted to take over the case when they were in such a rush to show themselves throwing the book at officer Chauvin to impugn him in the public eye. We're not talking about some small discretionary different between this and a normal prosecution, we're talking about charges being brought at literally 100x the normal speed, before they even had a clue whether charges were appropriate or what they should be.

Being manhandled by the police during an arrest isn't the only way a government can deprive its citizens of their civil liberties. It really activates my almonds to the lynch mobs cheering on the deprivation of normal due process to such an extent that even the ACLU brought a rope.

so Harvard said it violated copyright? which one lmao that racist institution hates asian people and brags about it in the courtroom

Charges didn't come after evidence. We have video evidence of what went on that is available to the public. This case is incredibly well documented for a criminal case.

Charges usually come months after FOR POLICE OFFICERS. For the average person charges are laid pretty quickly, usually within a few days before a magistrate judge, and the fact that it takes an obscenely long time to charge officers is a problem with the system that needs corrected. The fact that charges for this officer went faster than is normal for police officers doesn't mean the charges were fast enough to constitute a rights violation.

damn I misread with a brain fart and thought they said they found the video valid and thus D&E invalid. Other way around I guess.
so wait does that mean they're claiming the D&E is valid without knowing what the supposed violating content is?
nevermind I reverse what I said and actually that makes it twice worse, they're not only making a double secret probation claim that its in violation without specifying what, but then claiming the claim its in violation is legitimate without knowing what the violation is?