packgrad said:

---

---

This accomplishes nothing for black Americans or BLM. Tactics matter.

Would MLK have done or condoned this? Is this John Lewis' "good trouble"?

packgrad said:

---

---

This would fit in perfectly on the "NC State pauses athletics" thread...

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

This accomplishes nothing for black Americans or BLM. Tactics matter.

Would MLK have done or condoned this? Is this John Lewis' "good trouble"?

---

Yep, it's counter productive. But that activist left has never been known for sensible tactics. We will see if the news channels (besides fox) pick this up, it's been all over social media, both from the right and left

https://reason.com/2020/08/25/black-lives-matter-protesters-dc-silence-is-violence-white-people/

Just wait for the RIOTS when most if not all of these cops are acquitted.

lumberpack5 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

Qualified immunity and union police contract protection at the same time is a problem.

I am not against Qualified Immunity in non-union situations. That serves the taxpayers.

However the City Manager or the Mayor in a strong mayor system needs to have the ability to **** can a bad police officer without facing a strike or unwinnable litigation.

When you have both protections there is no incentive for the police to police themselves.

---

Qualified Immunity needs to be abolished regardless of union contracts. It applies to more than police anyways. Any government official can claim it when caught commiting a crime or abusing power

---

Qualified immunity in NC is cut when the unit of government buys insurance for certain things. The employee of the unit is covered under the umbrella of the coverage in most cases. Sometimes the insurance company will balk if the source of the litigation is an idiot that should have been fired long ago, it is document, and the actions are clearly illegal. Those hurdles together make one high hurdle.

The citizen is not in privity of contract with his or her government. The government does not "owe" you anything. Also the pockets of the government are much deeper than the person who wronged you. For instance, say the lazy building inspector does not come to your job on time and causes you to lose a load of concrete. He does not have a contract with you. Much case law will eventual say you should not have trusted him to come on time in the first place. Now if his negligence which can be documented results in a life safety thing and that thing kills people he and the unit of government have negligence insurance only to the level of criminal behavior.

I would not even bring abuse of power into the argument.

Three of the four men on Mount Rushmore abused their power. Washington was a power unto himself. Qualified immunity and government officials mix when stupidity is involved, not when conspiracy to defraud is involved. Take for example the crooks who voted themselves million dollar pensions in some little California town. Eventually they were indicted and convicted of fraud and conspiracy, but for a while they were in the wind so to speak claiming they took legal votes, etc., etc.

This is the definitive "Bible" on the subject in NC

https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/course_materials/Crowell_Local%20gov%27t%20immunity%20Nov%2011.pdf

The Institute of Government in Chapel Hill synthesizes the written law and more importantly the case law. The case law is what is most important. NC is one of the most conservative legal and fiscal states in the Nation and keeps it's smaller units under very strict controls. We are a Dillon's rule state and that also applies the University System.

Many States allow "Home Rule". Home rule means that unit gets to make it's own laws that are not in direct conflict with their State and Federal law. It is in some of these places that really crazy **** happens. Examples are San Diego, Detroit, Montgomery County Alabama (Birmingham), NYC, It happens in some rural places but since so few live their it gets little attention. Almost all of these cases of crazy are tied to economic foolishness and hubris, followed up by vultures and con men. Straight up frauds and thefts actually seem to cause less long term damage.

---

You're going to have to break this down more for me. I'll admit I am completely ignorant to state specific aspect of Qualified Immunity and it's very possible NC has a better standard. I have not so far seen any crazy QI examples from our state.

There are a ton of examples of people getting off for offenses that are clearly corrupt, unethical, sometimes even illegal, and still being granted QI. Even opinions where the judge clearly states that the accused should be held responsible, but they are forced to accept QI because the exact offense was not specifically prohibited in that exact scenario.

---

North Carolina is a Dillon's Rule State. That means cities and towns are creatures of the State. The State loans power to its creatures. There is no home rule in NC. This means that crazy stuff that can percolate in Seattle, Portland, NYC, etc., has to get past the NC General Assembly which is more conservative than most home rule cities in the United States. This is a conservative state fiscally and legaly.

Perhaps you are mixing up the immunity a district attorney grants in return for testimony regarding a crime. That is not QI Qualified Immunity or Sovereign Immunity which is the immunity held by the "Kings" agents. King means "the State". Agents means ministers, officials, etc. You can only sue the King if he allows it and you can't sue his ministers in their personal capacity while they are carrying out the King's orders. In NC you are never granted QI of SI - you either have it or you don't based on past case law.

Does this help?

---

It helps me understand your original post, yes. But no I am not talking about immunity granted by a prosecutor.

You've given me some homework to read up on State standards for QI, but aren't the vast majority of Qualified Immunity cases held in Federal Court? At least I believe that is the case for police misconduct cases.

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/13/how-federal-courts-gave-us-qualified-immunity/

Bas2020 said:

---

Just wait for the RIOTS when most if not all of these cops are acquitted.

---

This is a poorly worded tweet. The very last paragraph states that if the body had been found under normal circumstances (IE he dropped dead at home and was found there) then it would be ruled an overdose. Everyone knows the circumstances around his death werent normal.

Now, having said that, it definitely throws a wrench into the court case. Proving muder/manslaughter just became way more difficult to prove. Not even going to pretend to be a lawyer but the burden of proof on the prosecution is going to be much more difficult.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

This is a poorly worded tweet. The very last paragraph states that if the body had been found under normal circumstances (IE he dropped dead at home and was found there) then it would be ruled an overdose. Everyone knows the circumstances around his death werent normal.

Now, having said that, it definitely throws a wrench into the court case. Proving muder/manslaughter just became way more difficult to prove. Not even going to pretend to be a lawyer but the burden of proof on the prosecution is going to be much more difficult.

---

It is a poorly worded tweet and unclear how it impacts the court case.

If a person has advanced heart disease, and they get into an argument with their neighbor, the stress of which causes a mild heart attack and then the neighbor also shoots them the coroner could say the same thing.

"Under different circumstances we would have ruled advanced coronary artery disease as the cause of death."

In other words, their other conditions were serious-to-dire, and may alone have been enough to cause death, but for the fatal gunshot wound, or in the case of George Floyd but for his compressed chest and/or airway and the officer's complete disregard for his health once Floyd had stopped moving and breathing.

The old law school thought exercise corollary a buddy told me one time is to imagine a person jumping off a skyscraper. That person is falling freely, down the side of the building. A man on the 14th floor pulls out a gun and, just as the jumper is flying past his window, shoots him, killing him instantly. Is the man on the 14th floor guilty of murder? The jumper was going to die anyway.

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

This is a poorly worded tweet. The very last paragraph states that if the body had been found under normal circumstances (IE he dropped dead at home and was found there) then it would be ruled an overdose. Everyone knows the circumstances around his death werent normal.

Now, having said that, it definitely throws a wrench into the court case. Proving muder/manslaughter just became way more difficult to prove. Not even going to pretend to be a lawyer but the burden of proof on the prosecution is going to be much more difficult.

---

It is a poorly worded tweet and unclear how it impacts the court case.

If a person has advanced heart disease, and they get into an argument with their neighbor, the stress of which causes a mild heart attack and then the neighbor also shoots them the coroner could say the same thing.

"Under different circumstances we would have ruled advanced coronary artery disease as the cause of death."

In other words, their other conditions were serious-to-dire, and may alone have been enough to cause death, but for the fatal gunshot wound, or in the case of George Floyd but for his compressed chest and/or airway and the officer's complete disregard for his health once Floyd had stopped moving and breathing.

The old law school thought exercise corollary a buddy told me one time is to imagine a person jumping off a skyscraper. That person is falling freely, down the side of the building. A man on the 14th floor pulls out a gun and, just as the jumper is flying past his window, shoots him, killing him instantly. Is the man on the 14th floor guilty of murder? The jumper was going to die anyway.

---

I agree with everything you said. My point is that the report from the coroner complicates the murder charges. It only takes one juror to decide it was the drugs fault, not the cops.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

I agree with everything you said. My point is that the report from the coroner complicates the murder charges. It only takes one juror to decide it was the drugs fault, not the cops.

---

Agree. Frankly it's been a tough legal case from the beginning.

Kneeling on someone's neck has terrible optics from a racial oppression standpoint but is not cut and dry at all regarding causation of death, especially when Floyd was evidently saying he couldn't breathe before he was even on the ground.

But, saying he couldn't breathe before he was on the ground and his intoxication are all the more reason the officer needed to pay attention to signs Floyd's life was slipping away as he kneeled on him.

Negligent homicide seems so much more fitting than murder. The officer's lack of appropriate response to Floyd's health was stunning no matter what you think of Floyd's robable level of intoxication or the lack of clear-cut airway restriction from the knee.

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

This is a poorly worded tweet. The very last paragraph states that if the body had been found under normal circumstances (IE he dropped dead at home and was found there) then it would be ruled an overdose. Everyone knows the circumstances around his death werent normal.

Now, having said that, it definitely throws a wrench into the court case. Proving muder/manslaughter just became way more difficult to prove. Not even going to pretend to be a lawyer but the burden of proof on the prosecution is going to be much more difficult.

---

It is a poorly worded tweet and unclear how it impacts the court case.

If a person has advanced heart disease, and they get into an argument with their neighbor, the stress of which causes a mild heart attack and then the neighbor also shoots them the coroner could say the same thing.

---

The coroner somehow manages to miss the bullet holes in this example?

Agreed

Packchem91 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

---

Dear lord, what parent would have allowed their 17 yo to go into that environment when they had no need to do so? Now his life is ruined as is the lives of the people (and families of) killed.

---

SO freaking stupid. A 17 year old does not need to be be driving 30 minutes for armed guard duty in a volatile situation. We all know 17 year old's do stupid crap at the absolute best of times. Every adult present, and his parents failed him.
I'm waiting on details here. There are several very different versions of what started the initial confrontation and shooting.

IseWolf22 said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

---

Dear lord, what parent would have allowed their 17 yo to go into that environment when they had no need to do so? Now his life is ruined as is the lives of the people (and families of) killed.

---

SO freaking stupid. A 17 year old does not need to be be driving 30 minutes for armed guard duty in a volatile situation. We all know 17 year old's do stupid crap at the absolute best of times. Every adult present, and his parents failed him.
I'm waiting on details here. There are several very different versions of what started the initial confrontation and shooting.

---

I mean, we all talk about how tough it is for police to stand in the midst of all the craziness (and scariness) of a mob like that (in fact, some use that fear to dismiss police actions)....and some fool allowed a 17yo to drive to someplace not his own.
So then he panics, and reacts. Probably a lot of people being chased may have done that. Should have never been there. I could guess on what type of parenting he received, but don't want to jump to those conclusions yet.

The NBA boycotts itself:


https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2020/08/26/boycott-nba-playoff-games-called-off-amid-player-protest/

This shooting is a really ****ed up situation. It's weird that the curfew is in place but there's video of police handing out water to the "militia" - almost like they were encouraging those folks

Sorry James

SupplyChainPack said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

I wonder how many of those "peaceful protestors" have "Co-exist" bumper stickers on their cars?

---

This is a hilariously dated reference

Bas2020 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

This shooting is a really ****ed up situation. It's weird that the curfew is in place but there's video of police handing out water to the "militia" - almost like they were encouraging those folks

---

There was no militia . It was people protecting their homes or business . One of them was a EMT who was actually helping BLM protestors that got injured . They were trying to protect their hard earned work and livelihood since the liberal officials tell the cops to stand down . That's what happens when you defund or neuter the police and you let a mob riot unchecked . If that happens in Raleigh at my business or a friend or family member it will happen here . There is a reason Wisconsin is finally asking for federal help ... two days late . This let them burn everything attitude by these city officials is lunacy .

---

You sure there was no militia?

https://www.infowars.com/wisconsin-militia-recruiting-citizens-to-patrol-kenosha-after-2nd-night-of-riots/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/26/facebook-removes-kenosha-guard-page-after-deadly-shooting.html

James Henderson said:

---

---

It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.

Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it

Video clearly shows he's trying to run away from the first person he shot.

statefan91 said:

---

The kid who killed two people came from across State lines. What property was he protecting exactly?

And I don't buy that these protestors died due to lack of police funding. Police were rolling around in armored cars.

---

Apparently the kid lived a 15 minute drive away...and worked in Kenosa.....so he knew people in the area. Not defending what he did or may have done (Regardless of the reason). Just the narrative that he "came from out of state" makes it seems like he had nothing to do with the local events or individuals who lived and worked there..

So ANTIFA members are going to go around cities carrying guns and looting and rioting stores and business' and they are now surprised when people defend themselves? This was bound to happen. There is a reason this stuff doesnt happen more often in the South and MidWest. Not surprised in the least.

Maybe he did something to the person and that's why the person was chasing him? Guess we'll never hear that guys side of the story since the kid shot him in the head before he went and shot two other people.

I'm sure he's a good kid though.

James Henderson said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

James Henderson said:

---

---

It comes down to the 1st shooting. If it was self defense, the 2nd shooting likely is as well based on the video. But if the 1st was not self defense then he can't claim it for the 2nd because the people chasing him would be trying to apprehend a criminal.

Unfortunately what happened 1st isn't completely clear from videos. I've seen claims that he was sprinting to the parking lot because he saw someone smashing car windows (not the guy he shot). If that's true and he wasn't being chased originally that will be held against him by prosecutors because he inserted himself into the situation. I've seen people claim the guy he shot threw a "moltov cocktail" but from multiple videos it looks like a plastic bag. Apparently there are images of the victim carrying around a bag full of water bottles. Throwing water bottles has been popular recently. But his lawyers are going to have a hard time arguing that a water bottle justified his use of force. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state.
At the end of the day it will probably come down to the jury and minutia of Wisconsin law that I don't know. But I'll say again, him being there at all is ridiculous and incredibly stupid. It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it

---

You see in the first shooting he's running from someone chasing him.

I still don't get why you'd be chasing after someone with a rifle.

---

Bravery, stupidity, maybe both. Maybe he really just was trying to pelt him with a water bottle and didn't think he'd get shot in return. What's your point?
The video doesn't show how the confrontation started. There are conflicting stories as to who is the instigator and I'm not going to weigh in on those until we know more. But those details will absolutely matter in his trial.