The Derek Chauvin / George Floyd Trial

[fskimospy]

lol. this is complete horseshit.

In that same thread he also said that while he had a ‘law degree’ he didn’t ‘practice law’, which is a curious thing to say considering in the vast majority of states that would be illegal. He clearly intended to mislead people into thinking he had some sort of legal credentials when he had a fucking criminal justice degree, haha.

 

[hal2kilo]

In that same thread he also said that while he had a ‘law degree’ he didn’t ‘practice law’, which is a curious thing to say considering in the vast majority of states that would be illegal. He clearly intended to mislead people into thinking he had some sort of legal credentials when he had a fucking criminal justice degree, haha.

Just another SimpleTart derail.

 

[emperus]

No joke. You are LYING AGAIN. Do you ever get tired of lying all the time? I said I have a criminal justice degree. When someone asked if I really had a law degree I said I did. You then asked if I had a JD already in a longer question and I missed the JD abbreviation in your post. Again, most people I know lump degrees dealing with law or the justice system as law degrees. You are again trying to lie, deflect, and take the argument off the fact I caught you again making a WRONG statement. Why don't you ever grow up and admit it? When I misread the JD in your question, I unlike you, was the bigger man and said I made a mistake in relation to the question you asked. You on the other hand are seriously messed up in the head.

Most people do not consider a criminal justice degree as a Law Degree. Let it GO.

 

[woolfe9998]

No joke. You are LYING AGAIN. Do you ever get tired of lying all the time? I said I have a criminal justice degree. When someone asked if I really had a law degree I said I did. You then asked if I had a JD already in a longer question and I missed the JD abbreviation in your post.

You "missed the JD abbreviation" because it was embedded in a "longer question"? Really?

• #932

fskimospy said:
You said you had a law degree - do you or don’t you have a JD? That is what a law degree is after all.

I have one. I got it for a DoJ software development security job that required it. I don't actively practice law though.

Yeah, super long question there.

His question was succinct and to the point.

And when you add " I don't actively practice law though" you only reinforce the notion. Since "practicing law" is something only lawyers do, when you say that you don't "practice law" in spite of having the degree, that means you were saying you had a JD.

Not really interested in harping on this and I haven't participated in any discussion of it until now, but I'm tired of the back and forth on it so I'm linking the prior posting for clarification and hoping to put it to rest.

Just give it up.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Ahahaha, so DelusionalCake is revealing more...Criminal Justice degree, means he's a cop. That explains SOOO much about his posts that is hilarious. Which, am I the only one getting a strong impression that he's probably not actually even a cop now...which likely means he fucked that up in some manner. Which also would explain a lot.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Most people do not consider a criminal justice degree as a Law Degree. Let it GO.

It literally is not. And him claiming it is could also potentially be legally problematic for him. He should really watch what he posts with regards to his self professed expertise and qualifications.

I'm getting strong whiffs of the assholes that paid a diploma mill to get some bullshit "forensics" or other "law" degree and has been providing bullshit testimony in courts.

I'm also getting flashbacks to when our resident "official chiropractor of ATOT" claimed to be the official chiro for the Washington Native Slurs.

 

[JD50]

Ahahaha, so DelusionalCake is revealing more...Criminal Justice degree, means he's a cop. That explains SOOO much about his posts that is hilarious. Which, am I the only one getting a strong impression that he's probably not actually even a cop now...which likely means he fucked that up in some manner. Which also would explain a lot.

I don't think he is or was a cop. I was a cop, I worked with plenty of people with CJ degrees. No one claimed they had a law degree and they certainly never said anything like "I'm not actively practicing law" lol. Well it's possible he was in LE and is just a giant fucking liar.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I don't think he is or was a cop. I was a cop, I worked with plenty of people with CJ degrees. No one claimed they had a law degree and they certainly never said anything like "I'm not actively practicing law" lol. Well it's possible he was in LE and is just a giant fucking liar.

Er, that's my point, he strikes me as a power tripping full of shit clown that probably got revealed for being such and fired, but he genuinely believes he has a "law" degree because he considers a police officer to be "the Law". Or perhaps, as my later post mentions that he might be one of those assholes that got a sham degree and used that to interject himself into trials as an "expert witness" and then got outed after someone had to deal with his completely fucked in the head behavior looked into it and found out he's a total lying sack of shit.

 

[brycejones]

I don't think he is or was a cop. I was a cop, I worked with plenty of people with CJ degrees. No one claimed they had a law degree and they certainly never said anything like "I'm not actively practicing law" lol. Well it's possible he was in LE and is just a giant fucking liar.

He has stated he needed to get the cj degree for his job training people who do actual cj work. He probably does use of force training.......

 

[emperus]

He has stated he needed to get the cj degree for his job training people who do actual cj work. He probably does use of force training.......

Even attempting to say you have a law degree or that you're a non practicing lawyer because you have a criminal justice degree in itself betrays how ridiculous you are and how little you know about law. That's the thing that gets me, who does he spend time around that anything he says sounds normal.

 

[brycejones]

At the end of they even attempting to say you have a law degree or that you're a non practicing lawyer because you have criminal justice degree in itself betrays how ridiculous you are and how little you know about law. That's the thing that gets me, who does he spend time around that anything he says sounds normal.

Cops? Lol

 

[Torn Mind]

I am left wondering what exactly was the point of calling Creighton to the stand? He was in and out of there so fast.

I mean, the judge made the admonishment that the evidence was admitted solely for the effect of opioids on a person and not the character of George Floyd....

If it's a matter of opioid effects...I would interpret it as it did nothing significant to Floyd.

 

[Torn Mind]

Shawanda Hill about to testify in limited scope.

 

[Torn Mind]

Floyd was awake and then dozed off, then was woken again when the cops came. State's cross attempted to show there was nothing substantially abnormal.

 

[Torn Mind]

Officer Chang is an evident snake; clearly one of those cops who protects their own. Describing the crowd as angry in testimony. In bodycam video said "he did it to himself" referring to Floyd, even though he couldn't see shit.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Officer Chang is an evident snake; clearly one of those cops who protects their own. Describing the crowd as angry in testimony. In bodycam video said "he did it to himself" referring to Floyd, even though he couldn't see shit.

I would love for the prosecution to press the explanation on how Floyd asphyxiated himself on chauvin's knee....

 

[interchange]

Officer Chang is an evident snake; clearly one of those cops who protects their own. Describing the crowd as angry in testimony. In bodycam video said "he did it to himself" referring to Floyd, even though he couldn't see shit.

Regardless of what you make of him personally, it certainly demonstrates a mindset which needs to change en masse if we want these kinds of outcomes to truly change.

 

[Torn Mind]

Regardless of what you make of him personally, it certainly demonstrates a mindset which needs to change en masse if we want these kinds of outcomes to truly change.

You're not changing the mindset without changing the entire system of punishment and rewards...no different than trying to make a real estate agent honest or making a lawyer not corrupt. There are TWO de facto moats of immunity they have: one in that there are no governing bodies without conflict of interest to hold them accountable, and the other is the extremely high level of trust and regard some of the populace hold them in. So there are two matters to deal with; fixing the perverse incentives the system provides and also making the public much more willing to focus on and criticize their every move through building a cynical attitude towards their actions. All while not interfering too much with the legitimate aspects of doing their job.

Many forms of police abuse exist, not all causing death but are nevertheless a result of them understanding they can get away with a lot of shit due to the presumption of integrity they gain upon getting sworn and that there is no separate body without conflict of interest to really hold them accountable.

Botching investigations is one form of subtle abuse, and holding them accountable when they simply don't want to do the work requires a big pocketbook for private investigators.
In particular, if a policeman responsible for investigation himself decides to make a transgression, he can absolve himself of the crime within the process. This was attempted, and failed, in the case of Anthony Orban and a fellow officer committing sexual crimes against Erinn Orcutt. If not for a few fortunate circumstances, she'd be dead with cause of death unknown.

 

[interchange]

You're not changing the mindset without changing the entire system of punishment and rewards...no different than trying to make a real estate agent honest or making a lawyer not corrupt. There are TWO de facto moats of immunity they have: one in that there are no governing bodies without conflict of interest to hold them accountable, and the other is the extremely high level of trust and regard some of the populace hold them in. So there are two matters to deal with; fixing the perverse incentives the system provides and also making the public much more willing to focus on and criticize their every move through building a cynical attitude towards their actions. All while not interfering too much with the legitimate aspects of doing their job.

Many forms of police abuse exist, not all causing death but are nevertheless a result of them understanding they can get away with a lot of shit due to the presumption of integrity they gain upon getting sworn and that there is no separate body without conflict of interest to really hold them accountable.

Botching investigations is one form of subtle abuse, and holding them accountable when they simply don't want to do the work requires a big pocketbook for private investigators.
In particular, if a policeman responsible for investigation himself decides to make a transgression, he can absolve himself of the crime within the process. This was attempted, and failed, in the case of Anthony Orban and a fellow officer committing sexual crimes against Erinn Orcutt. If not for a few fortunate circumstances, she'd be dead with cause of death unknown.

Unless the accountability can be applied with a high degree of consistency (i.e. never IMO), then such accountability has no value to changing this mindset.

There are systemic interventions, but the bottom line is the only way this changes is if the relationship between the public and the police is built on mutual interests. It's really a shame that "defund the police" became the slogan, because if instead it were "support the police" e.g. reallocation of resources to make their jobs easier and clearer, maybe some minds would have been open instead of rammed further shut.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Prosecution is destroying the Defense's use of force expert witness. Yikes on bikes.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Prosecution is destroying the Defense's use of force expert witness. Yikes on bikes.

Cliff notes? 🙂

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't think he is or was a cop. I was a cop, I worked with plenty of people with CJ degrees. No one claimed they had a law degree and they certainly never said anything like "I'm not actively practicing law" lol. Well it's possible he was in LE and is just a giant fucking liar.

I'll go one step further, and claim prison guard. The extreme defense and projection surrounding policing policies connotates a certain worship that tells me wishes he was a cop.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Cliff notes? 🙂

The Defense brought this expert in and had him testify that Chauvin was using a "control technique" and not using "force". The Prosecutor is going almost frame by frame asking him "is this force?" The witness keeps having to begrudgingly agree that Chauvin was using force.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The Defense brought this expert in and had him testify that Chauvin was using a "control technique" and not using "force". The Prosecutor is going almost frame by frame asking him "is this force?" The witness keeps having to begrudgingly agree that Chauvin was using force.

Dayummm

 

[Torn Mind]

Unless the accountability can be applied with a high degree of consistency (i.e. never IMO), then such accountability has no value to changing this mindset.

There are systemic interventions, but the bottom line is the only way this changes is if the relationship between the public and the police is built on mutual interests. It's really a shame that "defund the police" became the slogan, because if instead it were "support the police" e.g. reallocation of resources to make their jobs easier and clearer, maybe some minds would have been open instead of rammed further shut.

There is no de facto obligation for the police to care for the public beyond not stirring an uproar despite sedating words like "protect and serve the community". They exist to protect the state(reputation and finances of the state) and the common people become a concern only after the state is not harmed. Utilizing new sedative words does not change the matter. Mutual interest needs to be defined and implemented into protocol, and not just via manuals or "rulebooks" but in actual practice.

Police proper are usually formed under the power of the local executive branch. Not that the sheriff system of being elected or not creates its own perverse incentives to engage in misconduct, but police departments are created to reduce the amount of public monitoring that can be done. Usually, the local executive is not voted out simply because of police misconduct/corruption, in part due to lack of information; other matters also matter more to voters.

Through both education and experience, officers eventually learn very well, in part from the criminals they deal with and the lawyers in the legal system, the means of conducting misconduct and getting away with it.

Defunding the police indeed is an ineffective slogan. Often the cuts cause the amount of cops deployed to be reduced, which means those still employed can engage in misconduct. Taking away the money does not do much. Social workers have their own set of biases and ways of screwing over people, just nonviolently.