I try not to let my fear consume me, but I do have a particular fear about how this trial under way in Minneapolis might play out.
A former police officer, Derek Chauvin, is on trial in the death of George Floyd, whose life was snuffed out when Chauvin pressed his knee on the back of Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes.
The prosecution is about to wrap up its case against Chauvin, who is charged with second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder.
My fear? It’s that the defense is going to persuade one juror that there is “reasonable doubt” that Chauvin’s actions resulted in Floyd’s death.
I haven’t heard every single word of the testimony so far, but I remain convinced that Chauvin’s brutal restraint tactic resulted in the death of a man as he was being arrested — for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. Talk about the punishment not fitting the crime.
I am sitting far away from the trial. I fear what the reaction might be if jurors cannot reach a unanimous verdict that Chauvin is guilty of murdering George Floyd.
Someone called it the “trial of the century.” I fear it is such only because the 21st century is still in its relatively early stages.
Derek Chauvin is on trial for the death of George Floyd, who Chauvin pinned to the ground by pressing his knee into the back of Floyd’s neck until Floyd stopped breathing. Floyd likely died while lying on the ground after Chauvin and his Minneapolis police colleagues stopped him — get this — for passing a counterfeit $20 bill.
The trial has captured the nation’s attention. It has grabbed us by the throat. It won’t let go until the Hennepin County, Minn., jury delivers its verdict. Chauvin is charged with third-degree murder.
I am sitting out here in the peanut gallery. However, I believe Chauvin deserves to serve time in prison for what looks to me like unreasonable force in restraining a man who wasn’t even resisting.
How might I react if the jury decides otherwise? Oh, my. I cannot yet even process that outcome. I won’t go marching on the streets of my community; civil protest is not how I roll. I likely would be angry and I’ll likely have to settle on using this blog as a forum to register my outrage.
I do respect the American jury system of justice. I acknowledge that criminal defendants deserve the best defense they can get. To that extent, Derek Chauvin should not be denied that right as a U.S. citizen.
Still, I haven’t been this transfixed by a criminal trial since, oh, the time O.J. Simpson got away with killing his ex-wife and her friend.
Who in the name of gullible listeners does Ron Johnson think he’s kidding?
The Wisconsin Republican U.S. senator is now trying to take back what he told the radio talk show host the other day about the insurrection of the Sixth of January on Capitol Hill.
I am certain beyond a doubt that he said that the crowd that stormed Capitol Building would “never” do anything to break the law, that they have “great respect” for law enforcement and that had the rioters belonged to Black Lives Matter or Antifa that he would have “been concerned.”
Now the Cheesehead nut job says the media twisted his remarks. That his statements were taken out of context. Huh?
Respect for law and order, for the police? What about the cops who were injured by the rioters/terrorists? Or the young Capitol Police officer who died from his injuries?
I heard what Johnson said. I heard all of it. I know what I heard.
Ron Johnson said it. He needs to own it. Oh, and while he’s at it he ought to resign from the U.S. Senate.
Black Lives Matter is a movement with a noble mission: calling attention to unequal treatment by police agencies toward people of color.
That nobility, though, has been shattered by outbreaks of violence in the name of BLM. We have seen it in cities across the land and, yes, around the world.
It is that violence that gives me pause as I consider that a Norwegian lawmaker has nominated BLM for the Nobel Peace Prize. We all should hail the nomination, as it seeks to do enormous good. However, the impact of the BLM movement has produced a whole lot of suffering, loss of life, damage to property and to communities’ reputations.
I have difficulty with the nomination.
As Fox News reported: In his nomination papers, Norwegian (member of Parliament) Petter Eide said the movement forced nations to reckon with racism and other injustices, The Guardian reported.
“I find that one of the key challenges we have seen in America, but also in Europe and Asia, is the kind of increasing conflict based on inequality,” he wrote. “Black Lives Matter has become a very important worldwide movement to fight racial injustice. They have had a tremendous achievement in raising global awareness and consciousness about racial injustice.”
I cannot for one second dispute what Eide said about the effect BLM has had on the worldwide discussion of racial inequality. The nomination, though, ignores the collateral damage inflicted by the looters, rioters and all-around bad guys whose conduct has erupted in violence.
Eide noted in his nominating statement that “most of the demonstrations organized by Black Lives Matter have been peaceful.” Most of them? OK, fair enough. That doesn’t wipe away the violence we have witnessed.
I detest the way the term “Black Lives Matter” has been been bastardized by foes of BLM who suggest the movement intends to say that “only Black Lives Matter.” It does nothing of the sort. It states only that the lives of African-Americans and other racial minorities matter as much as everyone else.
I know we don’t live in a perfect world. Thus, BLM’s noble intention has been perverted by too many hangers-on who seek to escalate what should be a peaceful message into something radically more violent.
A young black man has died at the hands of a police officer. This time the incident is close to home. It’s just one county over from where I live.
This story is at least as troubling as so many others that have caught the nation’s attention.
The victim in this case is Jonathan Price, 31, a Wolfe City resident. The man who shot him to death is Officer Shaun Lucas, a Wolfe City cop who has been charged with murder.
Price was well-known in his community. He reportedly did good deeds for folks in Hunt County. Indeed, at the time of his death he was seeking to break up a domestic disturbance at a convenience store. The officer who arrived then shot Price as the young man was moving away from the cop.
Another death has now caused immeasurable community grief.
The officer who’s been charged with murder has been placed on administrative leave, which means for the moment he will be paid while he cools his jets awaiting his fate. I’ve never quite understood the term “administrative leave,” nor have I understood how individuals continue to draw their pay while ostensibly being punished for an action that could put them in prison for a very long time.
But that’s how it goes.
I am heartened to know the Texas Rangers have taken over the investigation of this terribly sad case. I want their probe to be thorough and as transparent as it can possibly be.
Those yahoos who have taken control of a federal installation have committed a crime against the rest of the country.
Some ranchers who became upset because a couple of their colleagues got into trouble have seized the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters.
They’re vowing to stay put. The feds and local police authorities have other ideas.
Here’s a thought I want to share.
The individuals have taken control of property that belongs to all Americans. The headquarters in Burns, Ore., belongs to me, my family . . . and to you and your family. We’ve all paid for it with our tax money.
I can hear the logic, though, from those who say that the goofballs who have seized the building have paid for it, too. So, it’s their right to control it as they see fit, the argument might go.
Wrong.
Federal law prohibits the seizure of federal property by private citizens. Aren’t we required to follow the law?
These dipsticks say they’re mad at the feds over the way they treat citizens. Well, I’m angry that they feel compelled to seize property that belongs to all Americans.
Cliven Bundy once was considered a darling among Republicans for his stance against the federal government.
Then the Nevada rancher made a truly reprehensible statement, which is that African-Americans would be better off as slaves than many of them are today as unemployed citizens.
Oops. There went the support from his one-time allies.
You see, the Republican Party is trying to remake its brand among ethnic and racial minorities. Many congressional Republicans have been vocally opposed to immigration reform. They’ve sought to make it more difficult for people to vote by requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship at polling places. Some in Congress have said some mightily offensive things about the nation’s first African-American president.
The result has been that minorities — chiefly African-Americans and Hispanics — have been voting overwhelmingly for Democrats. Republicans are seeking to make inroads.
Then they lined up with Cliven Bundy, who’s been fighting with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over whether he should pay grazing fees for his cattle that are feeding on public land. The BLM wants him to pay; Bundy will have none of it, even if it means he’s breaking federal law.
Then this clown makes racist remarks about the so-called virtues of slavery.
Is it any wonder many in the GOP are abandoning this guy? U.S. Sens. Dean Heller, R-Nev., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., were among the first high-profile lawmakers to toss the guy over. Others have followed suit.
Republicans are learning a tough lesson here, which is to take great care in aligning themselves with gadflies while undergoing a political makeover.
Cliven Bundy has gone from right-wing hero to racist goat just like that.
Oh … my … goodness.
Bundy is the Nevada rancher who’s fighting with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees he is being told to pay because he is running his cattle on public land. He’s resisting the BLM order and has drawn fawning praise from right-wing media personalities for his defiance of the federal mandate.
Now comes word that the guy is quite capable of saying some truly idiotic things.
Such as this about African-Americans, according to ThinkProgress.com: “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Bundy said at a news conference Saturday, recounting how he had seen black people in a public housing project in North Las Vegas. “Because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Better off as slaves? Did this clown actually say such a thing?
The folks who’ve been cheering him on have been a bit slow to condemn his commentary as the racist rant that it is.
One key Senate Republican, Dean Heller of Nevada, was quick to put lots of distance between himself and Bundy. Heller said he “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., followed suit.
Bundy is breaking the law by grazing his cattle on federal land. The BLM is seeking to collect fees that Bundy owes it. That’s it. He’s become a hero to those who despise the feds.
