Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Andrew McCarthy writing at National Review says the Chauvin jury was correct to convict him, not based on anything reported in the media or introduced as evidence at trial or the pervasive atmosphere of intimidation, but because the conviction means Chauvin is a bad cop and that exonerates the rest of society from the charge of systemic racism.
Sacrificing a victim to the mob is shameful. Twisting your shameful act to pretend it’s all for the greater good is disgusting. But I expect nothing less from a Never-Trumper.
Joe Doakes
It’s the sort of rationalization I expect from someone who spent way too much time in the prosecution industry.
Andrew McCarthy is not a never-Trumper. He voted for him. His Trump negativity comes very recently, as a result of the Capitol riots.
McCarthy is a smart, honest lawyer. I happen to disagree with him about the prone restraint being the proximal cause of death. I think it was the last straw for a man whose shot clock had expired. We can argue for hours about that. I don’t expect police to be medical experts. They didn’t know Floyd had a bad heart, three vessel coronary disease and enough fentanyl on board to make him nod off in his car. They did know he was a huge guy, capable of resisting three street cops. Reasonable doubt? Heck yes!
SitDers are probably in alignment with Andrew McCarthy on 99% of matters of law that’s occurred in the last 20 years. He was a very tough on crime lawyer and remains so as an analyst writer.
McCarthy didn’t say the conviction exonerates society of racism. He said the details of the case showed no details at all that proved the left’s claim that society and policing are racist. Which, ya know, is a much different thing and something Joe Doakes agrees with.
..Ignorant post.
John Kraephammer: expert on Andrew McCarthy. Sure … *eyeroll*
John Kraephammer: expert on Shot in the Dark commenters and their “alignment” on “matters of law”. What? *shoots coffee out the nose* Stop the crazy talk.
Troy, it’s a totally accurate statement. You’re just being oppositional, and doing so from a place of ignorance. Do better if you want to argue with me.
” Do better if you want to argue with me.”
Really, that’s the prize?
Pass.
The thing that struck me when I looked it up is whether Minnesota actually has a law providing for an officer to be punished for excessive use of force, and as far as I can tell, it does not. More or less, it’s an interaction between real or practiced police department codes, state limitations on the use of force, and laws regarding assault, battery, and worse.
So if I’m right, we might note that if we had such a law that was well written, what was a year long ordeal with billions of dollars of damage becomes a simple open and shut case: “were you restraining a man who was unconscious and cuffed for over five minutes? If so, let’s get a plea deal.”
kraphead is not only delusional, he’s now creepy too.
“If you want to argue with me?”
What, do we make an appointment? Are slots disbursed by lottery?
I don’t know why I should give you advice, but here it is: push away from the keyboard and get some fresh air. And a life.
You’re always about 5 days behind the vibe, kinlaw.
What, do we make an appointment? Are slots disbursed by lottery?
Lotsa delivery systems for anonymous freelance moral tutelage.
That’s what I like about SITD: it never stops improving its customer service experience, now featuring your very own “debate me” guy. By appointment only.
I disagree!
I am in fact a debate me guy…
I was always under the impression that debate is an intellectual process as opposed to the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Yes, it was a paraphrase from the Argument Clinic sketch.
jdm on May 5, 2021 at 2:01 pm said:
I was always under the impression that debate is an intellectual process as opposed to the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
I disagree!
I’d rather spend my time in Being Hit on the Head Lessons. At least those eventually stop.
It remains that your analysis is wrong, and that you misinterpreted McCarthy’s piece. I know I’m annoying because I’m coming off dickish. I’m annoyed that right wing crap thought makes you publish bad analysis.