Riots in Minneapolis

I don't know that case. I'm fine with asset forfeiture on convictions.

 

A large number of outliers makes bad the sub-section of that program which permits those outliers.

It's not just a tiny few rare instances. Just one example: Government seizes billions in cash from air travelers without ever filing a criminal charge | CBS 17

Far too broad a statement to agree or disagree with. There are countless conceivable actions such that 1) people lose assets and 2) those people are criminals, that we'd all agree are wrong.

This is just bad-faith hyperbole. Not wanting people to have property stolen is hardly tantamount to despising police.

 

I watched the video of George Floyd. He was saying he couldn't breath while he was in the car. That is the reason the police men let him out. If they would have simply ignored him, forced him in the car, and called an ambulance or had medics meet them at the police station, they wouldn't be in jail.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at there - I mean obviously, if they had done something reasonable instead of something criminal, they probably wouldn't have been convicted of a crime.

 

There was no way Chauvin wasn't going to be convicted. People would have burned the city to the ground and the jury knew it.

 

the jury heard testimony that the amount of fentanyl, meth and morphine in Floyd's body would not have caused his death. They were justified in finding that the cause of death was the actions of Chauvin.

The fact that he is heard saying he can't breath before he is pulled out of his car is suggestive that the drugs were a problem, even if not lethal in and of itself.

One question I have always had and never seen addressed is this: Chauvin and Floyd both worked the same dance hall. Chauvin provided security and Floyd was a bouncer. Did they know each other? Did they have a prior incident? All kinds of possibilities come to mind.

 

Chauvin didn't really do anything criminal. What he did with the knee on the back was standard police tactics across the whole USA. It has been applied many many times with no problem. I have watched a couple of videos where it was even applied to women. Floyd was 6'5" and outweighed Chauvin by a large amount. Floyd couldn't breathe because he was dieing from an opioid overdose.

 

They hear first that he had 5 times the lethal dose of fentanyl. The autopsy said the same. A state employee came in and lied about it, "he had 5 times the lethal dosage but that didn't kill him". Complete BS. Only functional idiots believe garbage like that. But a government employee said it, you say. Yeah. That's the problem.

The symptoms are suggestive he was overdosing the whole time. The concentration identified in the autopsy shows it was killing him.

 

The kicker was that Floyd didn't show a bruise in the area.

 

That's exactly right. He was clearly having an extreme reaction long before he was put on the ground, at his own request. I think there's debatable evidence that it Chauvin murdered him. At best Chauvin contributed to Floyds inability to breathe by having him on his stomache with knee pressure but even in the coroners report there was no bruising if I remember correctly.

The optics were bad with the video but Floyd may have died in the backseat of that car.

 

At this point, I don't particularly care what killed Floyd. I can see it both ways. However, the idea that you can be sued for defamation for thinking the jury got it wrong is pretty crazy.

They're trying to pull an Alex Jones, but this isn't like the Jones case. In that case, he made some **** up out of thin air. Kanye stated a theory of the case that, even if not accepted by the jury, was supported by evidence. It is wasn't a fabrication.

 

They are just looking for a payday
I hope Kanye doesn't cave

 

It'll likely get dismissed without reaching a jury.

 

The jury ALSO heard from experts who testified that it WAS a lethal amount based upon blood levels.

 

But...science!

 

At 878 days you can't say it is too soon.

 

Actually, no. He was reporting what some others said at the time. Then after a while came to disagree with them and changed his mind publicly on his show.

 

Admittedly, I don't listen to his show, but my understanding is that he stood by it for quite a long time. Also, adding the phrase, "people are saying" doesn't stop it from being defamation.

 

Defamation is now reporting on theories that may be untrue, then looking further into them and determining that they are in fact untrue. Super dangerous and will be used by the Left to destroy their opponents. Get ready for all the evil that will come of this.

 

The people who defamed Nick Sandmann could have made the same claim. Reporting a theory isn't defamatory, but stating or implying it as true with no basis for it can be. We don't suffer from defamation law being too lax. We terribly suffer from it being too narrow.

 

I will agree with you when a Democrat gets sued for a $1 Billion and then gets sued again for $1 Trillion. Until then it is a one sided weapon being used to ruin the lives of those who the US regime doesn't agree with.

 

Wait and see what's going to happen with the case.

 

Alex will appeal. I can't see this seriously being a new precedent.

 

He will. Listening to one legal commentator he doesn't have much of a chance in the appeals either based on the way the case is handled. He can't even claim innocence. His lawyer can't provide evidence to defend him. It is a very strange thing when you get into the details.

 

It appears college admissions racial discrimination is over:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/us/supreme-court-harvard-unc-affirmative-action.html

 

I almost clicked, but won't give that rag the satisfaction.