Not-So-Super League: All 6 English Teams Abandon Breakaway Soccer Group

Not-So-Super League: All 6 English Teams Abandon Breakaway Soccer Group

Update (1815ET): The Associated Press reports, according to a source, that Arsenal is withdrawing from the Super League, joining Chelsea and Man City.

Shortly after that news hit, the rest of the English Premier League teams confirmed their abandonment of the breakaway group:

  • *ARSENAL CONFIRMS IT’S WITHDRAWING FROM SUPER LEAGUE

  • *LIVERPOOL SAYS SUPER LEAGUE INVOLVEMENT DISCONTINUED

  • *MAN UTD: WE WON’T BE PARTICIPATING IN THE EUROPEAN SUPER LEAGUE

  • *TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR SAYS TO WITHDRAW EUROPEAN SUPER LEAGUE PLAN

Not-so-Super league anymore!

*  *  *

Having been blasted almost unanimously around the world for ‘suffocating the grassroots’, or ‘mocking the working class origins of the game’, it appears the newly-formed breakaway soccer Super League is struggling even before it starts. 

The Financial Times reports that Chelsea and Manchester City are preparing to pull out of the European Super League after rival football clubs, managers, players, fans and politicians united in opposition to the contentious plans.

Their reported decision comes after England’s Premier League vowed earlier in the day to take action against its member clubs that have joined the new contest.

The decision to withdraw signals the first outward signal of discontent between the rebel clubs, who have faced international condemnation over their involvement in a project that threatens to overturn the hierarchy of the world’s favourite sport.

OUT:

  • Manchester City
  • Chelsea
  • Arsenal
  • Manchester United
  • Liverpool
  • Tottenham

IN:

  • Juventus
  • Inter Milan
  • AC Milan
  • Real Madrid
  • Barcelona
  • Atletico Madrid

There were reports from Spain earlier in the day that claimed that Barcelona and Atletico Madrid could look to follow suit, but these are, as yet unconfirmed.

“I think this project has died today… and it is on the way to becoming a complete botch,” former Real Madrid President Ramon Calderon told CNN’s Richard Quest.

“I think it deserves it because it was a project destined to kill football. I think mainly at this time that we are living where many clubs are struggling to survive due to the economic problems from the pandemic, what football needs is unity, solidarity,” added Calderon.

The threat of tangible and co-ordinated action against the Super League clubs is the next step of a growing crisis in European football

Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/20/2021 – 18:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gE4go3 Tyler Durden

Watch Live: Biden And Harris Comment On Chauvin Guilty Verdict

Watch Live: Biden And Harris Comment On Chauvin Guilty Verdict

Watch live: President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris following the guilty verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial.

Biden and Harris called the family of George Floyd following the announcement of the verdict. Biden could be heard saying “Feeling better now. Nothing is going to make it all better, but at least now there is some justice,” after which he mentioned Floyd’s daughter, Gianna, who said “my dad is going to change the world.”

“He is going to start to change it now,” said Biden, adding “You are an incredible family. I wish I were there just to put arms around you.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/20/2021 – 18:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3tDrHkL Tyler Durden

3/4 of States Are Now Stand Your Ground; only 12 Are Duty to Retreat


DutyToRetreat

I wrote about this several months ago, but several states have gone stand-your-ground since then—Ohio, Arkansas, and now North Dakota—so I thought I’d repeat it.

[A.] The “duty to retreat” is something of a misnomer (though a very common one); it’s not actually a legally binding duty (the way a parent has a duty to support a minor child, or a driver has a duty to exercise reasonable care while driving). Rather, it’s a provision that, under certain circumstances, failing to retreat from a confrontation will effectively strip you of your right to use deadly force for self-defense.

To see how it works, let’s first set aside situations where you may not use deadly force for self-defense regardless of whether you’re in a stand your ground state:

  1. You generally can’t use deadly force for self-defense in most states unless you reasonably believe that you’re facing the risk of death or serious bodily injury or some serious crime: rape, kidnapping or, in some states, robbery, burglary, or arson.
  2. In particular, you can’t use deadly force purely in retaliation, once any threat has passed.
  3. Nor can you use deadly force against a simple assault, unless you reasonably believe that you’re facing the risk of death or serious bodily injury.
  4. You often can’t use deadly force merely to protect property, but it’s complicated.
  5. You generally can’t use deadly force where you are yourself engaged in the commission of a crime (e.g., if you’re robbing someone and he fights back, you can’t “defend” yourself against him).
  6. You generally can’t use deadly force if you attacked the victim or deliberately provoked the victim with the specific purpose of getting the victim to attack or threaten you.

Now let’s set aside situations where you may use deadly force for self-defense, again regardless of whether you’re in a stand your ground state:

  1. You reasonably believe that you’re facing the risk of death etc. (see above) and you can’t retreat with complete safety. This would cover most situations where, for instance, you’re facing an attacker who has a gun, since one generally can’t safely retreat from a gun.
  2. You reasonably believe that you’re facing the risk of death etc. and you’re in your home, or (in some states) on other property that you own or in your vehicle or in your workplace. At least the “home” aspect of this is often called the Castle Doctrine, on the theory that your home is your castle.

So what does that leave for the duty-to-retreat / stand-your-ground debate?

  1. You reasonably believe that you’re facing the risk of death etc.
  2. You’re outside your home (or similar place).
  3. You’re not committing a crime, and you aren’t the initial aggressor, and (generally speaking) you are where you are legally entitled to be.
  4. In duty-to-retreat states, you are not legally allowed to use deadly force to defend himself if the jury concludes that you could have safely avoided the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or the other relevant crimes) by retreating with complete safety.
  5. In stand-your-ground states, you are legally allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself, regardless of whether the jury concludes that you could have safely avoided the risk of death etc. by retreating.

As best I can tell, the current rule is that 12 states fall in the duty to retreat category, with the states being bunched up quite a bit geographically; the other 38 states are stand your ground:


Stand your ground (38 states plus PR, CNMI)
Duty to retreat except in your home (MA, MD, ME, MN, NJ, NY, RI)
Duty to retreat except in your home or workplace (CT, DE, HI, NE)
Duty to retreat except in your home or vehicle or workplace (WI, GU)
Middle-ground approach (DC)
No settled rule (AS, VI)

Pennsylvania imposes a duty to retreat only when faced with an attacker who isn’t displaying or using a weapon “readily or apparently capable of lethal use.” Since it’s rare to have a threat of death or serious bodily injury (remember, you generally can’t use deadly force without such a threat) in the absence of such weapons, or of physical restraint that prevents a safe retreat, I view the Pennsylvania rule as being more on the stand-your-ground side.

The rule in federal cases seems to be ambiguous, and it is in D.C. as well. The D.C. formulation, for instance, is a “middle ground.” The law “imposes no duty to retreat, as it recognizes that, when faced with a real or apparent threat of serious bodily harm or death itself, the average person lacks the ability to reason in a restrained manner how best to save himself and whether it is safe to retreat.” But it “does permit the jury to consider whether a defendant, if he safely could have avoided further encounter by stepping back or walking away, was actually or apparently in imminent danger of bodily harm.” Query what exactly that means.

Still, I think this reflects the general pattern:

  1. 3/4 of the states are stand-your-ground, and most of them took this view even before the recent spate of “stand your ground” statutes.
  2. There is however a significant minority, basically a quarter of the states, in favor of a duty to retreat.
  3. Of course, none of this tells us what the right rule ought to be.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3tBF30N
via IFTTT

Ayanna Pressley Wants To Cancel the Rent. She’s Also Made at Least $15,000 As a Landlord.


reason-pressley

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.) wants to cancel the rent. She also is the owner of a rental property from which she and her husband have received tens of thousands of dollars in income.

On Monday, the Washington Free Beacon—relying on tax and financial disclosure records—reported that Pressley and her husband purchased a Boston property for $615,000 in 2019, and rented out one of its units for $2,500 a month. That same year, the Free Beacon reports, Pressley reported $15,000 in rental income.

It’s unclear when or if Pressley stopped renting out the property. Regardless, it raises interesting questions about her two-time sponsorship of the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act.

The latest version of the bill—written by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.), and co-sponsored by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Rashida Talib (D–Mich.)—would forgive renters’ and homebuyers’ obligations to pay rent or a mortgage from March 2020 through April 2022.

People couldn’t be evicted or foreclosed on for failure to pay for their housing during that period. Unlike the existing federal eviction moratorium, renters would also be released of any obligation to pay back-rent. The legislation went nowhere when it was first introduced in April 2020. Omar reintroduced the proposal again in March of this year.

Pressley’s support of this bill while also being a landlord would seem to cut across her class interests.

The Free Beacon does note that the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act creates a fund to compensate landlords for lost rental income. If she remains a landlord, Pressley could avail herself of that aid if she agreed to a five-year rent freeze, to not bar tenants with criminal convictions (a potentially concerning condition given that Pressley’s rental property also contains her primary residence), and a requirement to only evict tenants for “just cause.”

The Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act would also require Pressley to notify federal housing regulators if she puts her property on the market. The law would give public housing agencies, nonprofits, and state and local government bodies first dibs on buying it.

Pressley, in a press release, said that passing the Rent and Mortgage Cancelation Act “help move us towards an America where no person has to choose between putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head.”

Does Pressley also think that her own receipt of rental income has taken food out of her tenant’s mouth? Perhaps her congressional salary liberates her having to rely on any rental income. Unfortunately, many small-time landlords are not in such a fortunate position.

The Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services in March. The previous year’s version of the bill was referred to the same committee but never received a vote.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ejsEID
via IFTTT

3/4 of States Are Now Stand Your Ground; only 12 Are Duty to Retreat


DutyToRetreat

I wrote about this several months ago, but several states have gone stand-your-ground since then—Ohio, Arkansas, and now North Dakota—so I thought I’d repeat it.

[A.] The “duty to retreat” is something of a misnomer (though a very common one); it’s not actually a legally binding duty (the way a parent has a duty to support a minor child, or a driver has a duty to exercise reasonable care while driving). Rather, it’s a provision that, under certain circumstances, failing to retreat from a confrontation will effectively strip you of your right to use deadly force for self-defense.

To see how it works, let’s first set aside situations where you may not use deadly force for self-defense regardless of whether you’re in a stand your ground state:

  1. You generally can’t use deadly force for self-defense in most states unless you reasonably believe that you’re facing the risk of death or serious bodily injury or some serious crime: rape, kidnapping or, in some states, robbery, burglary, or arson.
  2. In particular, you can’t use deadly force purely in retaliation, once any threat has passed.
  3. Nor can you use deadly force against a simple assault, unless you reasonably believe that you’re facing the risk of death or serious bodily injury.
  4. You often can’t use deadly force merely to protect property, but it’s complicated.
  5. You generally can’t use deadly force where you are yourself engaged in the commission of a crime (e.g., if you’re robbing someone and he fights back, you can’t “defend” yourself against him).
  6. You generally can’t use deadly force if you attacked the victim or deliberately provoked the victim with the specific purpose of getting the victim to attack or threaten you.

Now let’s set aside situations where you may use deadly force for self-defense, again regardless of whether you’re in a stand your ground state:

  1. You reasonably believe that you’re facing the risk of death etc. (see above) and you can’t retreat with complete safety. This would cover most situations where, for instance, you’re facing an attacker who has a gun, since one generally can’t safely retreat from a gun.
  2. You reasonably believe that you’re facing the risk of death etc. and you’re in your home, or (in some states) on other property that you own or in your vehicle or in your workplace. At least the “home” aspect of this is often called the Castle Doctrine, on the theory that your home is your castle.

So what does that leave for the duty-to-retreat / stand-your-ground debate?

  1. You reasonably believe that you’re facing the risk of death etc.
  2. You’re outside your home (or similar place).
  3. You’re not committing a crime, and you aren’t the initial aggressor, and (generally speaking) you are where you are legally entitled to be.
  4. In duty-to-retreat states, you are not legally allowed to use deadly force to defend himself if the jury concludes that you could have safely avoided the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or the other relevant crimes) by retreating with complete safety.
  5. In stand-your-ground states, you are legally allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself, regardless of whether the jury concludes that you could have safely avoided the risk of death etc. by retreating.

As best I can tell, the current rule is that 12 states fall in the duty to retreat category, with the states being bunched up quite a bit geographically; the other 38 states are stand your ground:


Stand your ground (38 states plus PR, CNMI)
Duty to retreat except in your home (MA, MD, ME, MN, NJ, NY, RI)
Duty to retreat except in your home or workplace (CT, DE, HI, NE)
Duty to retreat except in your home or vehicle or workplace (WI, GU)
Middle-ground approach (DC)
No settled rule (AS, VI)

Pennsylvania imposes a duty to retreat only when faced with an attacker who isn’t displaying or using a weapon “readily or apparently capable of lethal use.” Since it’s rare to have a threat of death or serious bodily injury (remember, you generally can’t use deadly force without such a threat) in the absence of such weapons, or of physical restraint that prevents a safe retreat, I view the Pennsylvania rule as being more on the stand-your-ground side.

The rule in federal cases seems to be ambiguous, and it is in D.C. as well. The D.C. formulation, for instance, is a “middle ground.” The law “imposes no duty to retreat, as it recognizes that, when faced with a real or apparent threat of serious bodily harm or death itself, the average person lacks the ability to reason in a restrained manner how best to save himself and whether it is safe to retreat.” But it “does permit the jury to consider whether a defendant, if he safely could have avoided further encounter by stepping back or walking away, was actually or apparently in imminent danger of bodily harm.” Query what exactly that means.

Still, I think this reflects the general pattern:

  1. 3/4 of the states are stand-your-ground, and most of them took this view even before the recent spate of “stand your ground” statutes.
  2. There is however a significant minority, basically a quarter of the states, in favor of a duty to retreat.
  3. Of course, none of this tells us what the right rule ought to be.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3tBF30N
via IFTTT

Oregon Mulls Making Mask Mandate Permanent

Oregon Mulls Making Mask Mandate Permanent

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Officials in Oregon are considering making masking and social distancing requirements permanent.

The requirements, first introduced last year in an attempt to slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, are set to expire on May 4.

Oregon’s Occupational Safety and Health Division (OSHA) is proposing rules with no end date that would require a mask or other face covering for any person entering a business or a housing facility provided by employers. The rules would also require physical distancing, or the maintaining of distance between people.

As the Governor’s Executive Order is set to expire, the public health emergency remains a substantial concern in Oregon. As a result, it is necessary to extend the provisions from the Executive Order with a permanent rule. The unique exposures created in the labor housing environment, particularly in working situations requiring large numbers of workers, make these rules necessary to reduce risk to individual workers,” the division said in a summary of one of the proposed rules.

The office said the masking rule for businesses will likely be repealed “once it is no longer necessary to address the COVID-19 pandemic.”

During the public comment period on the proposals, OSHA received a record number of public comments, mostly critical, and nearly 60,000 residents signed a petition against them.

The petition’s author, Jack Dresser, said that an unelected public agency should not be allowed “‘indefinite’ authority over any facet of public life.”

“These rules would continue to impose intrusive, burdensome, and unnecessary reach of government into Oregon businesses, their employees, customer and client privacy, and customer freedoms to conduct commerce without government interference,” he wrote.

Opponents also are upset government officials won’t say how low Oregon’s COVID-19 case numbers must go, or how many people would have to be vaccinated, to get the requirements lifted in a state that’s already had some of the nation’s strictest safety measures.

“When will masks be unnecessary? What scientific studies do these mandates rely on, particularly now that the vaccine is days away from being available to everyone?” said state Sen. Kim Thatcher, a Republican from Keizer, near the state’s capital.

“Businesses have had to play ‘mask cop’ for the better part of a year now. They deserve some certainty on when they will no longer be threatened with fines.”

Michael Wood, administrator of Oregon’s OSHA, said that he is reviewing all the feedback to see if changes are needed before he makes a final decision by May 4, when the current rules lapse.

Residents wearing masks sit in downtown Lake Oswego, Ore., on April 11, 2021. (Gillian Flaccus/AP Photo)

Oregon, a blue state, has been among those with the country’s most stringent COVID-19 restrictions and now stands in contrast with much of the rest of the nation as vaccines become more widely available.

At least six states—Alabama, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, and Texas—have lifted mask mandates, and some never implemented them. In Texas, businesses reopened at 100 percent capacity last month.

“Make no mistake, COVID-19 has not disappeared, but it is clear from the recoveries, vaccinations, reduced hospitalizations, and safe practices that Texans are using that state mandates are no longer needed,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced last month.

A number of top public health officials, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, decried the move, but it did not lead to a surge in COVID-19 cases that some had predicted. Fauci later said he found that fact “confusing.”

Oregon has seen its daily new cases of the disease drop from a peak of over 2,000 in December of last year to several hundred in March. The daily cases have been climbing this month, reaching a recent-high of 888 on April 17.

Some 199 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized as of April 16, with 15 other patients suspected to have the disease, according to state data. Over 5,000 hospital beds were available in the state.

Under Oregon’s temporary rules, 11 businesses in the state have been fined for violations. Last week, two Black Bear Diner sites, one in Bend and one in Redmond, were fined more than $35,000 for “willfully allowing indoor dining” despite officials designating Deschutes County an “extreme risk” for transmission of the virus.

Besides mask and distancing requirements, Oregon’s permanent proposals include workplace rules regarding air flow, ventilation, employee notification in case of an outbreak, and sanitation protocols.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown speaks to the press in Roseburg, Ore., on Oct. 2, 2015. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The proposals dovetail with separate actions issued by Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, using a state of emergency declaration, requiring masks in public statewide—and even outside when six feet (1.83 meters) of distance can’t be maintained—and providing strict, county-by-county thresholds for business closures or reductions in capacity when case numbers rise above certain levels.

More than a third of Oregon’s counties are currently limited to indoor social gatherings of six people, and the maximum occupancy for indoor dining, indoor entertainment, and gyms is 25 percent capacity or 50 people, whichever is less. And many schools are just now reopening after a year of online learning.

The workplace rule is “driven by the pandemic, and it will be repealed,” Wood said.

“But it might not need to go away at exactly the same time the State of Emergency is lifted,” he said, referring to Brown’s executive orders.

Amid pandemic frustration and deprivation, the issue has gained a lot of attention. More than 5,000 public comments were sent to the agency, smashing its previous record of 1,100.

“The majority of comments were simply hostile to the entire notion of COVID-19 restrictions,” Wood said.

“The vast majority of comments were in the context of, ‘You never needed to do anything.’”

Justin Spaulding, a doctor at the Cataract & Laser Institute of Southern Oregon, is among those who raised concerns about the proposal in public comments.

“I do not understand these new guidelines for business. If we put these into effect we will only continue to blunt the recent drop in business,” he wrote. “We have a large subset of patients that are unwilling [or] hostile with the current guidelines, and making them permanent will only make it worse.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/20/2021 – 18:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Pcjwx2 Tyler Durden

Daily Briefing: Dollar Dump Breathes New Life Into Commodities

Daily Briefing: Dollar Dump Breathes New Life Into Commodities

Tony Greer of TG Macro joins Real Vision crypto editor Ash Bennington to update his thesis on commodities and interest rates as the U.S. economy continues to roar. Greer makes sense of a surging equity market that backed off today and argues that commodities will continue to perform in a “liquidity parade” set by a combination of the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Greer analyzes falling yields and a falling dollar and connects the rise in financing costs to the slump in cannabis equities. Greer covers the resurgent bull markets in grain, iron ore, and oil, contending that monetary authorities are pouring “kerosene” on these assets

Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/20/2021 – 16:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3szjBbB Tyler Durden

Ayanna Pressley Wants To Cancel the Rent. She’s Also Made at Least $15,000 As a Landlord.


reason-pressley

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.) wants to cancel the rent. She also is the owner of a rental property from which she and her husband have received tens of thousands of dollars in income.

On Monday, the Washington Free Beacon—relying on tax and financial disclosure records—reported that Pressley and her husband purchased a Boston property for $615,000 in 2019, and rented out one of its units for $2,500 a month. That same year, the Free Beacon reports, Pressley reported $15,000 in rental income.

It’s unclear when or if Pressley stopped renting out the property. Regardless, it raises interesting questions about her two-time sponsorship of the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act.

The latest version of the bill—written by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.), and co-sponsored by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Rashida Talib (D–Mich.)—would forgive renters’ and homebuyers’ obligations to pay rent or a mortgage from March 2020 through April 2022.

People couldn’t be evicted or foreclosed on for failure to pay for their housing during that period. Unlike the existing federal eviction moratorium, renters would also be released of any obligation to pay back-rent. The legislation went nowhere when it was first introduced in April 2020. Omar reintroduced the proposal again in March of this year.

Pressley’s support of this bill while also being a landlord would seem to cut across her class interests.

The Free Beacon does note that the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act creates a fund to compensate landlords for lost rental income. If she remains a landlord, Pressley could avail herself of that aid if she agreed to a five-year rent freeze, to not bar tenants with criminal convictions (a potentially concerning condition given that Pressley’s rental property also contains her primary residence), and a requirement to only evict tenants for “just cause.”

The Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act would also require Pressley to notify federal housing regulators if she puts her property on the market. The law would give public housing agencies, nonprofits, and state and local government bodies first dibs on buying it.

Pressley, in a press release, said that passing the Rent and Mortgage Cancelation Act “help move us towards an America where no person has to choose between putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head.”

Does Pressley also think that her own receipt of rental income has taken food out of her tenant’s mouth? Perhaps her congressional salary liberates her having to rely on any rental income. Unfortunately, many small-time landlords are not in such a fortunate position.

The Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services in March. The previous year’s version of the bill was referred to the same committee but never received a vote.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ejsEID
via IFTTT

Amazon Confirms Fake Delivery Truck Prowling NYC Streets 

Amazon Confirms Fake Delivery Truck Prowling NYC Streets 

A user on the Brooklyn chapter of the NextDoor social media platform posted a video earlier this month of what appears to be an Amazon delivery driver “loading up barricades into an Amazon truck.” 

The NextDoor user, who goes by the nickname “L.W.,” wrote a post that said, “On Driggs Ave near the corner of Russell, I saw a man loading up barricades into an Amazon truck. He would pause when a car would go by, closing the doors and then resume when no one was around.” 

L.W. continued: “I called down from my window asking him what he was doing and he replied that the city told him to bring them back. I then asked (ridiculous of course, but putting him on the spot) if Amazon worked for the city. He mumbled something to the effect of yes. I started filming again after that exchange, and when he saw this, he cursed me out before driving away with the barricades.”

Motherboard reached out to Amazon about the video and gave a rather interesting statement. 

Amazon spokesperson Jenna Hilzenrath said, “the vehicle in the video is a counterfeit vehicle and we’re actively working with the NYPD as they investigate the incident.” 

Hilzenrath added the person in the video driving the counterfeit van is not an Amazon employee. The spokesperson would not reveal how they knew the van was fake and or if the person spotted in the video wasn’t an employee. 

The New York City Police Department told Motherboard that “the investigation is active and ongoing.” No other questions were answered. 

So what exactly would a person or organization under cover of a fake Amazon van (blend in very easy) be doing on the streets of New York City or elsewhere? One theory could be metal scrappers though there’s nothing conclusive about why the person was stealing barricades. 

The next question is: How many counterfeit vans are running around the country with people or criminal organizations conducting nefarious activities? 

Amazon vans are so plentiful on streets that your mind doesn’t think twice about it. 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/20/2021 – 17:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3arsopS Tyler Durden

Derek Chauvin Found Guilty of Murdering George Floyd


Chauvintrial

Jurors this afternoon found former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin guilty of murdering George Floyd in an encounter that led to widespread national protests, riots, and policing reforms.

After about 10 hours of deliberation, jurors found Chauvin guilty of second-degree unintentional murder (killing Floyd unintentionally as a result of assaulting him), guilty of third-degree murder (acting dangerously and without regard of human life), and guilty of second-degree manslaughter (culpable negligence that risks causing death or harm). Under Minnesota law, the most serious charge, second-degree unintentional murder, poses a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison, though sentencing guidelines show Chauvin likely facing around 12 years. Third-degree murder has a maximum sentence of 25 years. Second-degree manslaughter is punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years.

In May 2020, Chauvin attempted to arrest Floyd for allegedly trying to purchase cigarettes at a local store with a counterfeit bill. During a confrontation that was captured on video by bystanders as well as police body cameras, a resistant, seemingly panicked but non-violent Floyd ended up on the pavement next to a police SUV, where Chauvin knelt on his neck, pinning him to the ground for more than seven minutes.

Floyd complained multiple times that he couldn’t breathe and then lost consciousness. He stopped breathing, and paramedics were unable to revive him. Subsequent medical examination determined that his death was a homicide caused by cardiac arrest due to his subdual, but Floyd also had fentanyl in his system.

That Floyd was under the influence of fentanyl would be used (particularly by Chauvin’s defense) to argue that the amount of force to make this arrest was justified, under a common and debunked claim by law enforcement officers that drug use confers “superhuman strength,” thus calling for such heavily physical responses.

The seemingly casual way that Chauvin pinned Floyd to the ground as he died became an iconic image and a rallying cry for policing reform, particularly in the way officers interact with black people. Protests led to hundreds of proposed policing reforms across the country. Only a few dozen passed, some focusing on rules for use of force and bans on certain types of neck restraints that cut off circulation.

Chauvin was fired the very next day after Floyd’s death, and several police chiefs and police unions decried his tactics and said the kneeling technique was an inappropriate use of force.

But whether Chauvin was criminally responsible for Floyd’s death needed to be determined by a jury. The two-week trial ended today with a jury determining that Chauvin is criminally culpable for Floyd’s death.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QaLWYP
via IFTTT