OT - City of Minneapolis

[Coolbreeze44]

Not surprised at all. What else were frightened jurors going to do?

Im not surprised by your reaction. I'll leave it at that.

I'm not saying whether I agree or not with the verdict, I'm simply saying it was a no brainer. If you have something to say, say it.

Anyone who has done jury duty knows if the nature of a case frightens you, you don't get selected. Even if you weren't, you'd say so just to get out of being part of the 12. If you wanna knock anyone then knock the judge for selecting frightened jurors.


If anything, be mad at the fact that they wasted little time deliberating.

I'm not mad at all. You were never going to find jurors in this case who weren't frightened. I mean that's just a fact. I didn't watch any of the trial, only read a little about it. I have no opinion on whether he should have been convicted or not. Just saying the trial was over before it started. And if you were on edge about what the decision was going to be, you shouldn't have been.

Cool you are better than that. You already made up your mind did next to no research on the trial and are now making what sounds like a irrefutable claim. Like I said you are better than that.

Ummm...

Have you not read his other "OT" threads?

You want to pick a fight with me? DM me, let's see what you got.

Settle down tough guy.

No let's have it. I've been taking shit from you for too long. Those days are over. Send me a message and let's do this.

What is wrong with you?

Are you like this in real life?

Chill.



[Note: What would a DM meltdown solve?]

You are such a pussy

[Crazysauce]

40,50, 60 percent I guess I really don't care. Fact is when 13 percent of the population is committing that many violent crimes they are much likelier to be killed. Add to that the fact that whites are killed approximately twice as many in numbers by police then you could make the argument more whites die at the hands of police at a higher rate then blacks. But that wouldn't fit what everyone tries to push. But now worries. It's always easier to blame someone else these days. We live in the age of no accountability. It's always someone else's fault.

I find it funny how quickly you can pull up statistics that show this yet one can still claim that blacks are targeted more than whites when clearly it is not statistically true.

[AbeVigodaLive]

40,50, 60 percent I guess I really don't care. Fact is when 13 percent of the population is committing that many violent crimes they are much likelier to be killed. Add to that the fact that whites are killed approximately twice as many in numbers by police then you could make the argument more whites die at the hands of police at a higher rate then blacks. But that wouldn't fit what everyone tries to push. But now worries. It's always easier to blame someone else these days. We live in the age of no accountability. It's always someone else's fault.

I find it funny how quickly you can pull up statistics that show this yet one can still claim that blacks are targeted more than whites when clearly it is not statistically true.

Crazysauce in this thread...

1. Push bogus stats as the sole basis of your point.
2. But claim stats don't matter when called out on his own erroneous stats.
3. Cry about nobody taking accountability. Irony!
4. Rinse. Repeat.

THIS IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE AS A COUNTRY.
THIS IS WHY THESE THREADS SUCK.
THIS IS WHY THESE THREADS SHOULDN'T BE ON THE BASKETBALL BOARD.

Just own it, sauce. Or provide a link. I have no beef with you if you can prove that very one-sided statistic. I don't even have a dog in the white vs. black crime discussion. So if you can prove the stat... I'm 100% cool with it.

My only beef is with disingenuous, third-rate, by-the-book trolls and hacks.

[Crazysauce]

Ugh Abe, did you look at the percentages in the pages you posted. I did own it. I was trying to recall it from memory. The only thing I was stating was the bull shit that the Grey posted about blacks being targeted at a way higher rate is bull shit. Use the links you have. I wasn't the one who originally stated the lie. I was just calling it out.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Ugh Abe, did you look at the percentages in the pages you posted. I did own it. I was trying to recall it from memory. The only thing I was stating was the bull shit that the Grey posted about blacks being targeted at a way higher rate is bull shit. Use the links you have. I wasn't the one who originally stated the lie. I was just calling it out.

Cavalierly tossing out inaccurate statistics as THE premise of your point is foolhardy at best... disingenuous at the very least... and caustic and simply stupid at worst.

- Grey wrote "It's been a major issue for years and if the fact that more black people are (dis)proportionately killed by police..."

There's accuracy there, supported by facts. There are numerous reports that indicate that 1,252 black people (13.4% of the population) were killed by police between 2015 and 2020... compared to 2,385 white people (76.3% of U.S. population) killed by police.

That's not a lie. That's literally a true statement.

Now... I'm totally cool with adding context. For example... it's also true that black people disproportionately commit more violent crimes. You could have ended it there and you'd be correct. But I'm not finding anything where it's close to 61%. A very specific number you pulled from "memory" that has not been found anywhere yet.

And that's my problem here. It's my problem with heated online political/societal/partisan posturing. Accuracy doesn't matter online. Honesty doesn't matter online. And we fuel discord. We fuel confusion. We fuel lies. We fuel so many things that continue to divide us... even those who don't want to be divided.

It's fine to opine here and use statistics to frame your argument. But do so accurately. This is no different than claiming D. Russell is the best three point shooter in the league because he shoots them at 61%.

Everybody here knows I'd be calling you out for that, too. Only when it comes to polarized political discussions... the ramifications of leading arguments with inaccurate statistics has more dire consequences on our society.

We live in a world of falsehoods or narratives delivered by nefarious sources. Right. Left. Meh.

There's no reason we have to fall prey to that kind of crap here. This is a basketball forum for chrissakes.



[Note: If you can find the 61% statistic... please post it. All cool. If you can't... my point stands. And it hurts your credibility. For example, you also wrote about an incident in St. Cloud. Could be worthwhile to the discussion. BUT... Why should we believe that's accurate if you're (possibly) citing inaccuracies elsewhere. See what I mean?]

[TheGrey08]

Ugh Abe, did you look at the percentages in the pages you posted. I did own it. I was trying to recall it from memory. The only thing I was stating was the bull shit that the Grey posted about blacks being targeted at a way higher rate is bull shit. Use the links you have. I wasn't the one who originally stated the lie. I was just calling it out.

It's not a lie dude lol. It's a straight up fact. Just look at them. Based on POPULATION, black people are killed a much higher rates by police. White people die more in raw numbers, yes, but I'm talking about based on population. If you read my other comments in the thread you will clearly see I don't make police brutality out to be only an issue about race. Maybe you misunderstood what I said, idk.

You on the other hand spewed bogus numbers not even close to reality. Trying to blame the black population as just being more criminal while ignoring all the factors that go into it is the typical "bullshit" I see all the time. Open your mind, see things from other people's perspectives and take into account all factors.

PS: No where have I said anything about police targeting people. They do certainly patrol problem areas/poorer areas more so than the opposite and there are higher black populations in poorer areas so naturally more potential interactions. They also come up with more reasons to stop people in those areas too.

[WildWolf2813]

That's unfortunate you feel that way wildwolf. Keep in mind that the jury selection system is not "rigged" and allows the prosecution and defense to vet jurors for bias in either direction. In addition, I would argue that the jury is under enormous outside pressure to convict.

I'd be curious to know your thoughts on a better system for such a trial. You are implying with your statement that you and "many others" think he is guilty. So should we crowd-source the process and let folks like you and me vote on whether he is guilty or not based on what we have read and seen in the media?

I would expect nothing less when a situation is so clearly morally and professionally wrong. When his own Chief and fellow officers testified against him (far more rare for fellow officers to do so)

But the larger point of my response to Wildwolf is that he assumed the system is rigged to acquit Chauvin without providing any evidence and without suggesting a better alternative to the process of jury selection and our trial system. It turns out he was wrong.

Q- Rigged isn't the word I would use, but for us it feels like we've seen or heard about stuff like this all the time and even though technology played a huge role in everyone being able to see what happened, in every other case like this, the officers get acquitted. You know why people rioted in LA in '92? Because they thought to themselves, "everything we've been telling you about the LAPD is on video and they still got off." Objectively, Chauvin didn't have a defense, but we're so conditioned to believing that he might get acquitted, that when the verdict was read, in the back of a lot of people's minds, there was that possibility that it could end the way so many other cases like this did.

I'm glad Hennepin County proved me wrong about this case.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

That's unfortunate you feel that way wildwolf. Keep in mind that the jury selection system is not "rigged" and allows the prosecution and defense to vet jurors for bias in either direction. In addition, I would argue that the jury is under enormous outside pressure to convict.

I'd be curious to know your thoughts on a better system for such a trial. You are implying with your statement that you and "many others" think he is guilty. So should we crowd-source the process and let folks like you and me vote on whether he is guilty or not based on what we have read and seen in the media?

I would expect nothing less when a situation is so clearly morally and professionally wrong. When his own Chief and fellow officers testified against him (far more rare for fellow officers to do so)

But the larger point of my response to Wildwolf is that he assumed the system is rigged to acquit Chauvin without providing any evidence and without suggesting a better alternative to the process of jury selection and our trial system. It turns out he was wrong.

Q- Rigged isn't the word I would use, but for us it feels like we've seen or heard about stuff like this all the time and even though technology played a huge role in everyone being able to see what happened, in every other case like this, the officers get acquitted. You know why people rioted in LA in '92? Because they thought to themselves, "everything we've been telling you about the LAPD is on video and they still got off." Objectively, Chauvin didn't have a defense, but we're so conditioned to believing that he might get acquitted, that when the verdict was read, in the back of a lot of people's minds, there was that possibility that it could end the way so many other cases like this did.

I'm glad Hennepin County proved me wrong about this case.

I understand your skepticism and past disappointments, but perhaps in some of those other cases the evidence wasn't as clear-cut and there was information the jury had reviewed and deliberated upon that us average citizens didn't see or hear. Remember, the jury is vetted by the prosecution and defense specifically to eliminate bias either way.

So what would you suggest could have been done differently in selecting jury pools and conducting trials? Is it possible that you were pre-judging some of those past acquittals without fully understanding the complete picture?

I get that there has been past injustices, but that shouldn't lead to pre-determining someone's guilt without a fair and thorough trial and putting yourself in the jury's shoes. Each one of these tragic situations has its own unique set of circumstances and it isn't always as clear-cut as the Chauvin case.

[Coolbreeze44]

Just want to clarify some remarks I've made in this thread. Upon reflection, I think I've been misunderstood by some. That can easily happen when people are so passionate about an issue like this. But the clarification I want to make is that I believe Chauvin committed a serious crime during the events of that day. I in no way have tried to argue otherwise. What I don't have an opinion on is whether that crime was 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter or all of the above. I'm simply not educated enough on crime law to have a worthwhile opinion. The opinion I HAVE tried to share is that the trial in the hands of 12 jurors was only going to end this way. I suppose they could have acquitted on one charge and convicted on another. But he was going to be a loser yesterday. This isn't just my opinion or something I created. The Jason Whitlock's of the world had the same opinion, and Q alluded to the pressure these jurors were under. The existing factors put an enormous amount of stress on our judicial system, and the jury system is an imperfect one under that stress.

So I hope this clears up any confusion resulting from the high emotions yesterday. One point I want to add is this: I'm extremely frustrated with the state of the union today. The main reason for that is the tens of thousands of people who lost their livelihood due to the events of that tragic day. Good, honest, hardworking Americans who did nothing wrong but had their businesses destroyed. The riots and property destruction that was allowed to transpire, largely for political purposes, is an enormous tragedy. We have a right to peaceful protest in this country, what happened last summer was far different. With government not stepping up to control these wrongs, my fear is they are going to become more prevalent. If something happens you disagree with, what's going to stop you from burning a building down? Chances are 1) you will get away with it, and 2) it will work to achieve your goal. People are going to make mistakes, honest or otherwise. We simply can't tear our cities apart every time they occur. I don't have a crystal ball, but a box has been opened and I'm more than worried about the consequences

[thedoper]

Just want to clarify some remarks I've made in this thread. Upon reflection, I think I've been misunderstood by some. That can easily happen when people are so passionate about an issue like this. But the clarification I want to make is that I believe Chauvin committed a serious crime during the events of that day. I in no way have tried to argue otherwise. What I don't have an opinion on is whether that crime was 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter or all of the above. I'm simply not educated enough on crime law to have a worthwhile opinion. The opinion I HAVE tried to share is that the trial in the hands of 12 jurors was only going to end this way. I suppose they could have acquitted on one charge and convicted on another. But he was going to be a loser yesterday. This isn't just my opinion or something I created. The Jason Whitlock's of the world had the same opinion, and Q alluded to the pressure these jurors were under. The existing factors put an enormous amount of stress on our judicial system, and the jury system is an imperfect one under that stress.

So I hope this clears up any confusion resulting from the high emotions yesterday. One point I want to add is this: I'm extremely frustrated with the state of the union today. The main reason for that is the tens of thousands of people who lost their livelihood due to the events of that tragic day. Good, honest, hardworking Americans who did nothing wrong but had their businesses destroyed. The riots and property destruction that was allowed to transpire, largely for political purposes, is an enormous tragedy. We have a right to peaceful protest in this country, what happened last summer was far different. With government not stepping up to control these wrongs, my fear is they are going to become more prevalent. If something happens you disagree with, what's going to stop you from burning a building down? Chances are 1) you will get away with it, and 2) it will work to achieve your goal. People are going to make mistakes, honest or otherwise. We simply can't tear our cities apart every time they occur. I don't have a crystal ball, but a box has been opened and I'm more than worried about the consequences

I appreciate this post Cool. I think today is as good of a day as any for people to move toward reconciliation and I hope it happens. I have a great deal of pessimism as many do because we seem to be trapped in a negative cycle that includes deplorable behavior regardless of political views. Personal responsibility does matter in all of this, vandalism and violence is not an appropriate response to injustice, although it is understandable that some may respond that way. If everyone individually took a portion of responsibility in the dysfunctions that exist in Western society I believe everyone would be further along. Whether we feel responsible or not, its becoming our collective problem. It is worrisome, and hopefully not insurmountable.