Buchanan: Assaulted & Vilified, The Cops Save The Cities

Buchanan: Assaulted & Vilified, The Cops Save The Cities

Tyler Durden

Tue, 06/02/2020 – 14:45

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

On the fifth night of rioting, looting and arson in Minneapolis, the criminal elements were driven from the streets.

By whom? By the same cops who had been the constant objects of media derision and mob hatred.

Without the thin blue line, far larger sectors of dozens of America’s cities would be in ruins, burned to the ground by the mobs that showered police and their vehicles with rocks, bricks, bottles, Molotov cocktails and any debris that could be thrown at them.

Because they were the first responders in these riots, the cops were the first targets of criminal assault and the last line of defense of the law-abiding.

Wherever they had to draw back or pull back, anarchy ensued.

Consider the decision of Mayor Jacob Frey and Police Chief Medaria Arradondo to surrender and abandon the 3rd Precinct. As police cars pulled out and the cops fled, the exhilarated rabble invaded, pillaged and burned the precinct.

And America saw, in astonishment, a triumph of anarchy.

One wonders what the world thought as it, too, watched.

Now, consider the political coloration of Minneapolis.

Frey, who ordered the surrender, is a far-left Democrat. Gov. Tim Walz is a liberal Democrat, as are both U.S. senators including Amy Klobuchar. Minneapolis Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is a soul sister of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Minnesota was the political home of Vice Presidents Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale and Senators Eugene McCarthy and Paul Wellstone, liberal icons all. The state has not voted Republican for president since 1972. Even Ronald Reagan never carried Minnesota.

Yet, of his home state, this citadel of liberalism, Walz said last week, “Systemic racism must be addressed if we are to secure, justice, peace and order for all Minnesotans.”

Query: How does “systemic racism” permeate a blue state dominated for decades by liberal Democrats? What explains the failure of Democrats who have long run Minnesota to root out racism?

Why have liberals failed to exorcise racism where they rule? Are even good Minnesota liberals infected with the virus?

What we witnessed this week in Minneapolis is a failure of liberalism. The leadership of the city and state could not persuade the protesters it claims to represent to remain peaceful. And when rioting, looting and arson erupted, and attacks on police began, that leadership sat morally and politically paralyzed.

The elites could not condemn both the killing of George Floyd and, with equal moral vehemence, the violent and criminal element that came to permeate the ranks of the protesters.

They failed to get sufficient law enforcement or the National Guard into the city on time, or to declare and impose a curfew, or to use requisite force to halt the rioting and looting.

As a result of their incompetence or cowardice, the custodians of the lovely city of Minneapolis let her be gang-raped by a criminal mob.

Why have those leaders not turned in their resignations?

Comparisons have been drawn to the 1960s.

In the summer of 1964, LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. In 1965, the Voting Right Act was enacted after Selma. Then came one Great Society program after another, as LBJ declared at Howard University, we are moving beyond equality of opportunity to “equality of result” in America.

However, in August 1965, Watts exploded, the worst race riot since Lincoln sent Union troops to put down the New York draft riots of 1863.

Newark and Detroit had uprisings of similar magnitude in 1967.

In April 1968, for days after the assassination of Martin Luther King, U.S. cities were pillaged and burned, Washington, D.C., among them.

LBJ’s Kerner Commission said the cause of the riots that had come out of the black community was actually “white racism.”

Said Richard Nixon speaking for the silent majority: They seem to blame everybody for the riots but the rioters themselves.

Liberals of that era, too, seemed morally disarmed and politically paralyzed when it came to confronting criminal elements that emerged from minority communities and voted Democratic.

Such situations invariably seem to produce in liberals a paralysis where the crimes are attributed to a “few bad apples” hiding among all those “peaceful protesters.”

There is much chatter about “speaking truth to power.”

What does that mean today?

At the least, the recognition that while the killing of George Floyd was an atrocity that cries out for justice, so, too, does the rampant criminality that exploded in its aftermath.

But because of the failure to condemn that criminality, and the paralysis of Minnesota’s political leadership class, the black community in Minneapolis has lost hundreds of businesses — some forever — that had provided them with the necessities of a decent life.

Liberals may equate the term “law and order” with racism, but without law and order, there is no justice and no peace.

*  *  *

Watch the Latest Videos on Our Buchanan-Trump YouTube Playlist!

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36UNKZH Tyler Durden

Confederate Monuments Are Participation Trophies. Thankfully, Some Are Coming Down.

It would be “wiser…not to keep open the sores of war,” wrote the former Confederate general Robert E. Lee in 1869, “but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.” Lee wrote those remarks as he rejected an invitation to enshrine Confederate memorials for fallen soldiers.

In the decades following Lee’s death in 1870, many such monuments would come to be, and many would bear his likeness. But the erstwhile general may finally be getting his wish. In the wake of protests across the country, set in motion after a Minneapolis cop killed George Floyd, an unarmed black man, numerous communities have seen a reinvigorated push to remove local homages to Confederate soldiers—the likes of which amount to little more than grand participation trophies that celebrate the most racially fraught time in U.S. history.

There’s a rich irony to the fact that Lee, who recognized the ill-conceived nature of the idea, would become the unwitting mascot for those who support those memorials. After all, statues of the general himself are not few and far between. They have become the quintessential lightning rod in the debate, famously drawing the attention of the white supremacists who marched on Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017, as they protested the removal of his statue.

So it should come as little surprise that monuments of Lee are often a target of demonstrators and city councils alike. Fort Myers, Florida, announced today it will remove a bust of the general. Protesters in Montgomery, Alabama, toppled a statue of Lee, while other protesters in Richmond, Virginia, defaced a similar memorial that sits on the town’s “Monument Avenue.”

Protests weren’t limited to Lee, however. Over in Nashville, Tennessee, demonstrators upended a statue of Edward Carmack, a newspaper publisher and early-1900s state lawmaker who called for the firebombing of the civil rights activist and journalist Ida B. Wells. His monument stood in front of the Tennessee State Capitol, an odd place for someone whose racist ideology did not withstand the test of time.

Supporters of Confederate monuments often argue that the stone exaltations preserve heritage. Memorials inherently celebrate a particular time and place—it’s right there in the name. But what good does it do if the heritage preserved and celebrated is an inherently racist one?

The bulk of these Confederate memorials were erected between 1900-1930, long after the Civil War’s conclusion. Behind their enshrinement was the very same racial animus that the country is currently attempting to grapple with. The 1924 reception for Lee’s statue provides an adequate anecdote. As I’ve written previously:

Over in Charlottesville, the Ku Klux Klan commemorated the May 21 unveiling of Lee’s statue with a public cross burning on May 16 and a two-hour parade on May 18 attended by “thousands,” according to archives from The Daily Progress, the Charlottesville newspaper that’s been publishing since 1892. The throngs of people “equaled those usually seen here to witness the parade of the large circuses,” the paper wrote. “The march of the white-robed figures was impressive, and directed attention to the presence of the organization in the community.”

That wasn’t the exception but rather the rule. Over in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the industrialist Julian Carr introduced the now-toppled Silent Sam statue in 1913 with a speech on the merits of preserving white supremacy. “One hundred yards from where we stand,” he noted, “less than 90 days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench, until her skirts hung in shreds.” New Orleans’ 1911 celebration of the monument of Confederate President Jefferson Davis—a fierce defender of slavery—had a Stars and Bars formation singing “Dixie” at a ‘Whites Only’ ceremony. The list goes on.

I don’t doubt that those invocations of heritage are genuine. But that heritage incontrovertibly hinges on a legacy of slavery and racial terrorism, whether some like to admit it or not. Those who fought for the Confederacy should never be forgotten—but put them in a museum, keep them in the history books, and so on. Don’t give them a reception fit only for history’s best heroes.

The collective unwillingness to confront that history may be coming to an end.  Birmingham, Alabama, directed the removal of the Confederate Soldier and Sailors monument Monday night, coinciding with Jefferson Davis’s birthday, which remains a state holiday. Alexandria, Virginia, similarly removed its Confederate monument Tuesday morning. It had not been defaced.

Vandalizing property and setting fire to buildings must certainly be condemned, no matter the protesters nor the topic at hand. But at such a pivotal moment, Confederate-monument defenders now have the perfect chance to, at the very least, empathize with the protesters’ arguments. After all, conservatives rightly decry participation trophies. Why keep up the biggest ones in history?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gKf7Kt
via IFTTT

Another Fatal Police Shooting in Louisville Gets Chief Canned

Louisville, Kentucky’s police chief is out after Louisville police officers—whose body cameras were not on—shot and killed the owner of a local barbecue food stand early Monday morning.

David McAtee, 53, who ran YaYa’s BBQ in Louisville’s West End, was among a group of people who were gathered in the late hours in a store parking lot next to McAtee’s stand. Both Louisville police and National Guard troops were there to break up the gathering—Louisville had instituted a curfew. The police claim somebody opened fire on them and that they returned fire, striking and killing McAtee.

Nobody has claimed that McAtee was the shooter. In fact, it’s not clear if anybody even shot at the police in the first place because the officers on the scene did not have their body cameras on.

Louisville was already dealing with one horrible police scandal—Breonna Taylor was shot and killed by police in a botched no-knock raid. Officers stormed the home of Taylor and her boyfriend Kenneth Walker on March 13 looking for evidence of drug trafficking. The couple, believing they were the victims of a break-in, called 911. Walker shot at the police in the self-defense, the police fired back, and Taylor was shot and killed.

As Reason‘s Zuri Davis has reported, Louisville police attempted to pin the blame on Walker and arrested him on charges of felonious assault and attempted murder of a police officer. In the wake of that scandal, Police Chief Steve Conrad announced his plans to retire at the end of June.

The fatal police shooting of David McAtee—by officers whose body cameras were turned off—has prompted Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer to take stronger action against the police chief. The mayor fired Conrad on Monday, a month before Conrad was scheduled to retire. Deputy Chief Robert Schroeder has been put in charge.

McAtee’s death is now being investigated by both the Kentucky State Police and the FBI. Schroeder has said there will be “discipline” for the officers who failed to turn on their body cameras.

Police resistance to body cameras may sound like a small story amid the present mayhem, but there is no denying the importance of cameras and other recording devices when it comes to documenting police misconduct. In Columbus, Ohio, for example, where the police used pepper spray against nonviolent protesters, many officers on the scene were not wearing body cameras and also lacked visible badge numbers on their uniforms because such items are not compatible with their riot gear, according to a Columbus police spokesperson.

Early studies suggested that the use of body cameras by the police could lead to less violent encounters between cops and citizens. Of course, those studies assumed that the cameras are turned on in the first place. Other researchers have since come to mixed conclusions, however. In some studies, for example, the use of body cameras resulted in fewer use of force complaints when compared to police departments that didn’t use them. But still other studies have found no significant differences in police conduct when body cameras are present.

Even if body cameras are not the solution to the problem of police misconduct, they nevertheless remain a good tool for holding officers accountable for bad behavior and also for exonerating those officers who are unfairly accused. Too bad there is no footage to show us exactly what happened when the police shot David McAtee.

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

Derek Chauvin’s Murder Trial Will Be All About ‘Reasonableness’

Derek Chauvin, the now-former Minneapolis police officer who pressed George Floyd’s head into the pavement with his knee until Floyd died, has now been charged by Minnesota prosecutors with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. 

The speed with which Chauvin was fired and charged is a promising sign that Minnesota officials have a real desire—whether sincere or political—to hold him accountable for Floyd’s death. After all, recent history has shown that it’s all too easy for prosecutors who want to shield police from consequences for misconduct to do so, either by outright refusing to prosecute, as the Department of Justice did in the case of Eric Garner’s killer, or by presenting a weak case to a grand jury in order to obtain a non-indictment, as happened in the killing of Michael Brown. 

But given the rarity of police prosecutions (and the even greater rarity of convictions), it’s fair to wonder how much these charges really mean. Though it’s true that excessive force prosecutions are rare, comparatively speaking, they do happen often enough that we can make some educated guesses about how this one will proceed. 

There Will Probably Be a Trial

In a legal system where more than 95 percent of criminal cases are disposed of by negotiated guilty pleas, it might seem like there won’t actually be a trial of Derek Chauvin. But chances are, there will be. Unlike most criminal cases, a police brutality case does not rise and fall on whether the government can prove that the defendant committed a particular act. There’s really no dispute about what the officer did, or whether he was the one who did it. The question is instead whether the force was justified. 

This makes taking your chances with a jury a much more appealing prospect to a police officer than it is to your average criminal defendant. Add to that the fact that jurors are generally inclined to give greater credence to police testimony than that of other witnesses, as well as the politically-charged atmosphere around issues of police violence, and a charged officer’s incentive to take a plea is greatly reduced.

The Trial Will Be All About “Reasonableness”

The facts of George Floyd’s death and the offenses that Chauvin has been charged with give the ex-cop a number of possible defenses to present at his trial. 

Unlike in a case where a police officer shoots someone with a gun, the facts at hand will allow Chauvin to argue that he had no reason to think that he was putting Floyd’s life in danger. The choice of charges reflect an awareness of this fact by the prosecutors—neither third-degree murder nor second-degree manslaughter require proof that the defendant consciously intended to cause death (a necessary element of Minnesota first- and second-degree murder, as well as first-degree manslaughter). Third-degree murder requires that the defendant have acted with “a depraved mind without regard for human life,” whereas second-degree manslaughter applies to acts with “culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.”  

There are a number of ways Chauvin might try to defend these charges. It’s possible that he will present medical evidence to try to show that drugs or preexisting conditions, rather than his use of force, caused Floyd’s death. That would negate the “causation” element of all homicide crimes, which requires the prosecution to show that the defendant’s acts were the cause of the victim’s death.

It seems more likely, however, that his defense will attack the state-of-mind elements of the offenses charged by arguing that no reasonable officer would have known that pinning George Floyd’s head down with his knee would create a serious risk of death. That would negate the “culpable negligence” element of manslaughter and the “depraved mind” indifference element of third-degree murder. 

Chauvin also might offer a justification defense, which instead argues that even if his acts otherwise meet the definition of a criminal offense, he is not guilty of that crime because another provision of the law authorized him to do what he did. In this case, that provision would be either Minnesota Statute 609.06, which authorizes police officers to use “reasonable force” when they “reasonably believe” that they are “effecting a lawful arrest,” or Minnesota Statute 609.066, which authorizes police to use deadly force when necessary to protect himself or another from death or serious injury, or to prevent the escape of a person who the officer “reasonably believes … will cause death or great bodily harm if the person’s apprehension is delayed.”

This legal framework defines the battleground on which the trial will be fought. The prosecution will argue that no reasonable officer would have failed to appreciate the danger of compressional asphyxia posed by kneeling on the head of a man who repeatedly complains of difficulty breathing; the defense will argue that it was reasonable to believe that Floyd was exaggerating his symptoms and was in no danger. The prosecution will argue that there was no reason to think Floyd was dangerous; the defense will counter that his behavior would have put a reasonable officer in fear of being assaulted if Chauvin had lifted his knee. The jury’s ultimate job will be to decide whose position is the reasonable one. 

Other Officers May Testify Against Chauvin

But the jury’s consideration of “reasonableness” might be guided by the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor, in which the Supreme Court held that the reasonableness of a police officer’s use of force must be evaluated “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” It also instructed that “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Although Graham technically only applies to determining whether a police use of force was reasonable under the constitution, as opposed to under Minnesota law, the states have widely embraced it for interpreting what “reasonableness” requires under their own law, so it is likely that the judge will give the jury an instruction that closely mirrors the language of Graham.

Graham‘s mandate that reasonableness be evaluated through “the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene” often makes juries reluctant to criticize an officer’s decisions after the fact. They reason (at the prompting of defense counsel) that even if the cop’s actions appear unreasonable or excessive to them, they weren’t there and don’t have a policeman’s training or experience. 

This pattern means that, often, the most persuasive evidence a prosecutor can offer in an excessive force trial is the testimony of another officer who was present on the scene that he knew at the time that his colleague’s actions were unreasonable and unjustified. Such testimony has the unique power to negate the “you’re not cops, you don’t understand” argument that Graham invites police defendants to make. 

However, such testimony is rarely obtained easily. As two cops testified in a recent federal excessive force trial in nearby St. Paul, there is enormous peer pressure for officers to remain silent about their knowledge of colleagues’ misconduct, and officers who speak up often face harassment and retaliation at work. Overcoming this “blue wall of silence” often requires prosecutors to cut favorable plea deals with officers whose involvement in an incident might expose them to criminal liability themselves in exchange for testimony.

The criminal complaint filed against Chauvin suggests that the prosecutors in Minneapolis might be thinking along these lines. The probable cause narrative goes out of its way to note that another one of the fired officers, Thomas Lane, expressed concern about continuing to restrain Floyd face-down and suggested rolling him over, only for his suggestion to be shot down by Chauvin. The inclusion of this detail in the complaint could well be a hint that prosecutors have their eye on Lane as a possible cooperating witness. Don’t be surprised if he turns up on the stand during a trial. 

There’s No Predicting Which Way the Jury Will Go

The odds are stacked against any criminal defendant in our justice system. But even when they’re on trial for murder, cops enjoy advantages not conferred onto others in the same position, as is true in so many other parts of the law. Add that to the fact that it only takes one juror to secure an acquittal, and conviction is anything but a safe bet. The result is that even in the rare case in which egregious, obvious misconduct is caught on video and vigorously prosecuted, accountability is a coin toss at best. And that’s a real shame. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2U3hQVz
via IFTTT

Another Fatal Police Shooting in Louisville Gets Chief Canned

Louisville, Kentucky’s police chief is out after Louisville police officers—whose body cameras were not on—shot and killed the owner of a local barbecue food stand early Monday morning.

David McAtee, 53, who ran YaYa’s BBQ in Louisville’s West End, was among a group of people who were gathered in the late hours in a store parking lot next to McAtee’s stand. Both Louisville police and National Guard troops were there to break up the gathering—Louisville had instituted a curfew. The police claim somebody opened fire on them and that they returned fire, striking and killing McAtee.

Nobody has claimed that McAtee was the shooter. In fact, it’s not clear if anybody even shot at the police in the first place because the officers on the scene did not have their body cameras on.

Louisville was already dealing with one horrible police scandal—Breonna Taylor was shot and killed by police in a botched no-knock raid. Officers stormed the home of Taylor and her boyfriend Kenneth Walker on March 13 looking for evidence of drug trafficking. The couple, believing they were the victims of a break-in, called 911. Walker shot at the police in the self-defense, the police fired back, and Taylor was shot and killed.

As Reason‘s Zuri Davis has reported, Louisville police attempted to pin the blame on Walker and arrested him on charges of felonious assault and attempted murder of a police officer. In the wake of that scandal, Police Chief Steve Conrad announced his plans to retire at the end of June.

The fatal police shooting of David McAtee—by officers whose body cameras were turned off—has prompted Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer to take stronger action against the police chief. The mayor fired Conrad on Monday, a month before Conrad was scheduled to retire. Deputy Chief Robert Schroeder has been put in charge.

McAtee’s death is now being investigated by both the Kentucky State Police and the FBI. Schroeder has said there will be “discipline” for the officers who failed to turn on their body cameras.

Police resistance to body cameras may sound like a small story amid the present mayhem, but there is no denying the importance of cameras and other recording devices when it comes to documenting police misconduct. In Columbus, Ohio, for example, where the police used pepper spray against nonviolent protesters, many officers on the scene were not wearing body cameras and also lacked visible badge numbers on their uniforms because such items are not compatible with their riot gear, according to a Columbus police spokesperson.

Early studies suggested that the use of body cameras by the police could lead to less violent encounters between cops and citizens. Of course, those studies assumed that the cameras are turned on in the first place. Other researchers have since come to mixed conclusions, however. In some studies, for example, the use of body cameras resulted in fewer use of force complaints when compared to police departments that didn’t use them. But still other studies have found no significant differences in police conduct when body cameras are present.

Even if body cameras are not the solution to the problem of police misconduct, they nevertheless remain a good tool for holding officers accountable for bad behavior and also for exonerating those officers who are unfairly accused. Too bad there is no footage to show us exactly what happened when the police shot David McAtee.

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

Derek Chauvin’s Murder Trial Will Be All About ‘Reasonableness’

Derek Chauvin, the now-former Minneapolis police officer who pressed George Floyd’s head into the pavement with his knee until Floyd died, has now been charged by Minnesota prosecutors with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. 

The speed with which Chauvin was fired and charged is a promising sign that Minnesota officials have a real desire—whether sincere or political—to hold him accountable for Floyd’s death. After all, recent history has shown that it’s all too easy for prosecutors who want to shield police from consequences for misconduct to do so, either by outright refusing to prosecute, as the Department of Justice did in the case of Eric Garner’s killer, or by presenting a weak case to a grand jury in order to obtain a non-indictment, as happened in the killing of Michael Brown. 

But given the rarity of police prosecutions (and the even greater rarity of convictions), it’s fair to wonder how much these charges really mean. Though it’s true that excessive force prosecutions are rare, comparatively speaking, they do happen often enough that we can make some educated guesses about how this one will proceed. 

There Will Probably Be a Trial

In a legal system where more than 95 percent of criminal cases are disposed of by negotiated guilty pleas, it might seem like there won’t actually be a trial of Derek Chauvin. But chances are, there will be. Unlike most criminal cases, a police brutality case does not rise and fall on whether the government can prove that the defendant committed a particular act. There’s really no dispute about what the officer did, or whether he was the one who did it. The question is instead whether the force was justified. 

This makes taking your chances with a jury a much more appealing prospect to a police officer than it is to your average criminal defendant. Add to that the fact that jurors are generally inclined to give greater credence to police testimony than that of other witnesses, as well as the politically-charged atmosphere around issues of police violence, and a charged officer’s incentive to take a plea is greatly reduced.

The Trial Will Be All About “Reasonableness”

The facts of George Floyd’s death and the offenses that Chauvin has been charged with give the ex-cop a number of possible defenses to present at his trial. 

Unlike in a case where a police officer shoots someone with a gun, the facts at hand will allow Chauvin to argue that he had no reason to think that he was putting Floyd’s life in danger. The choice of charges reflect an awareness of this fact by the prosecutors—neither third-degree murder nor second-degree manslaughter require proof that the defendant consciously intended to cause death (a necessary element of Minnesota first- and second-degree murder, as well as first-degree manslaughter). Third-degree murder requires that the defendant have acted with “a depraved mind without regard for human life,” whereas second-degree manslaughter applies to acts with “culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.”  

There are a number of ways Chauvin might try to defend these charges. It’s possible that he will present medical evidence to try to show that drugs or preexisting conditions, rather than his use of force, caused Floyd’s death. That would negate the “causation” element of all homicide crimes, which requires the prosecution to show that the defendant’s acts were the cause of the victim’s death.

It seems more likely, however, that his defense will attack the state-of-mind elements of the offenses charged by arguing that no reasonable officer would have known that pinning George Floyd’s head down with his knee would create a serious risk of death. That would negate the “culpable negligence” element of manslaughter and the “depraved mind” indifference element of third-degree murder. 

Chauvin also might offer a justification defense, which instead argues that even if his acts otherwise meet the definition of a criminal offense, he is not guilty of that crime because another provision of the law authorized him to do what he did. In this case, that provision would be either Minnesota Statute 609.06, which authorizes police officers to use “reasonable force” when they “reasonably believe” that they are “effecting a lawful arrest,” or Minnesota Statute 609.066, which authorizes police to use deadly force when necessary to protect himself or another from death or serious injury, or to prevent the escape of a person who the officer “reasonably believes … will cause death or great bodily harm if the person’s apprehension is delayed.”

This legal framework defines the battleground on which the trial will be fought. The prosecution will argue that no reasonable officer would have failed to appreciate the danger of compressional asphyxia posed by kneeling on the head of a man who repeatedly complains of difficulty breathing; the defense will argue that it was reasonable to believe that Floyd was exaggerating his symptoms and was in no danger. The prosecution will argue that there was no reason to think Floyd was dangerous; the defense will counter that his behavior would have put a reasonable officer in fear of being assaulted if Chauvin had lifted his knee. The jury’s ultimate job will be to decide whose position is the reasonable one. 

Other Officers May Testify Against Chauvin

But the jury’s consideration of “reasonableness” might be guided by the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor, in which the Supreme Court held that the reasonableness of a police officer’s use of force must be evaluated “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” It also instructed that “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Although Graham technically only applies to determining whether a police use of force was reasonable under the constitution, as opposed to under Minnesota law, the states have widely embraced it for interpreting what “reasonableness” requires under their own law, so it is likely that the judge will give the jury an instruction that closely mirrors the language of Graham.

Graham‘s mandate that reasonableness be evaluated through “the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene” often makes juries reluctant to criticize an officer’s decisions after the fact. They reason (at the prompting of defense counsel) that even if the cop’s actions appear unreasonable or excessive to them, they weren’t there and don’t have a policeman’s training or experience. 

This pattern means that, often, the most persuasive evidence a prosecutor can offer in an excessive force trial is the testimony of another officer who was present on the scene that he knew at the time that his colleague’s actions were unreasonable and unjustified. Such testimony has the unique power to negate the “you’re not cops, you don’t understand” argument that Graham invites police defendants to make. 

However, such testimony is rarely obtained easily. As two cops testified in a recent federal excessive force trial in nearby St. Paul, there is enormous peer pressure for officers to remain silent about their knowledge of colleagues’ misconduct, and officers who speak up often face harassment and retaliation at work. Overcoming this “blue wall of silence” often requires prosecutors to cut favorable plea deals with officers whose involvement in an incident might expose them to criminal liability themselves in exchange for testimony.

The criminal complaint filed against Chauvin suggests that the prosecutors in Minneapolis might be thinking along these lines. The probable cause narrative goes out of its way to note that another one of the fired officers, Thomas Lane, expressed concern about continuing to restrain Floyd face-down and suggested rolling him over, only for his suggestion to be shot down by Chauvin. The inclusion of this detail in the complaint could well be a hint that prosecutors have their eye on Lane as a possible cooperating witness. Don’t be surprised if he turns up on the stand during a trial. 

There’s No Predicting Which Way the Jury Will Go

The odds are stacked against any criminal defendant in our justice system. But even when they’re on trial for murder, cops enjoy advantages not conferred onto others in the same position, as is true in so many other parts of the law. Add that to the fact that it only takes one juror to secure an acquittal, and conviction is anything but a safe bet. The result is that even in the rare case in which egregious, obvious misconduct is caught on video and vigorously prosecuted, accountability is a coin toss at best. And that’s a real shame. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2U3hQVz
via IFTTT

China Launches QE To Jumpstart Economy

China Launches QE To Jumpstart Economy

Tyler Durden

Tue, 06/02/2020 – 14:24

One month ago, the South China Morning Post reported that China’s top economic policymakers have been “engaged in heated debate over whether the country’s central bank should directly buy special bonds issued by the finance ministry to help the government’s economic support measures.”

That “heated debate” appears to have ended with fans of money printing winning, because overnight the PBOC announced a new “credit loan program” which essentially amounts to another form of QE-lite (with Chinese characteristics of the Fed’s Main Street Lending Program and the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility), and which will “temporarily” purchase loans made to small businesses from some local banks; it represents Beijing’s latest attempt to boost the supply of credit to the real economy without a wholesale rate cut amid fears China’s record debt load (some 317% according to the IIF) can no longer sustain shotgun easing.

The central bank’s plan will use 400 billion yuan ($56 billion) from its relending quota to buy 40% of un-collateralized loans to small and medium-sized firms from qualified local banks, with maturities of at least six months made between Mar. 1 and Dec. 31, 2020.

The newly announced program has elements of both PPP and QE.

First, the PBOC and CBIRC jointly stated that SME loans that are scheduled to mature this year are allowed to be extended through March 31, 2021, as long as borrowers promise to keep employment stable (think of it as a quasi PPP). To incentivize participation, the central bank will use RMB 40bn of its relending quota to subsidize banks with 1% of the loan principal. The PBOC stated that around RMB 7 trillion ($1 trillion) of SME loans are eligible for this loan extension program.

In addition, the PBOC announced that it will set up a special purchase vehicle (SPV) and use RMB 400bn of its relending quota to purchase SME loans from qualified local banks (similar to what the Fed is doing with PPP-loans issued by participating banks). The funding is available to local banks for one year and the PBOC estimates that this program can increase SME lending by about RMB 1tn.

The purpose of the latest PBOC program is to help free up local banks’ balance sheet and allow them to increase lending to SMEs. As noted above, it shares similarity with the efforts by other central banks around the world to help small businesses and employment during the coronacrisis (e.g., the Main Street Lending Program and the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility by the Federal Reserve in the US). Similar to the Fed, the PBOC does not take credit risk of the purchased loans and the goal is to provide more liquidity for lending to SMEs. In addition, the type of SME loans targeted here is also relatively narrow in scope: only inclusive loans to small and micro-sized firms are eligible (around RMB 11tn total outstanding) vs. all loans to small and medium-sized firms (RMB 50-60tn total outstanding).

Speaking to Bloomberg, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group economist Xing Zhaopeng said the program “reflects policy makers’ top priority to support SMEs amid the aftershock of Covid-19,” while not willing to expand its balance sheet to flood the market, said “We expect the PBOC will not end the program as it described in the statement. In fact, this starts the QE process to lend cheap funds directly to the real economy.”

And confirming that this is precisely QE, the central banks was quick to say it isn’t. Speaking at a briefing, PBOC Deputy Governor Pan Gongsheng said the new monetary tools of the central bank are different from QE by “nature and scale”, which is what central bankers usually say when they have no qualified arguments.

In response Government bond yields and China interest rate swap (IRS) rates sold off amid market concerns that PBOC will focus even more on targeted lending than broad-based easing, which the market had been expecting to be announced after the conclusion of last month’s Congress. The 10-year government bond yield rose 5bp and 5-year IRS rate increased 8bp in the morning of June 2.

Ultimately, the central bank is trying to bring down borrowing costs across the economy to stimulate lackluster demand (as described in “As China PMI Disappoints, Another Major Problem Emerges“) and help China rebound from the economic collapse recorded in the first quarter caused by the pandemic. By taking loans to small businesses on to its balance sheet, the PBOC may help lower lenders’ capital requirements and thereby lower the cost of further lending.

As for China’s newly launched QE being temporary, Bloomberg’s David Qu was quick to pour cold water over that particular optimistic assumption: “We think the quota may expand further in the future, depending on how the economy is recovering from the impact of the coronavirus. The effectiveness of the policy move remains an important consideration – banks may still face constraints in regulatory requirements (such as capital adequacy) and risk-aversion sentiment.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Mpr6PC Tyler Durden

Shocking Evidence Suggests Coordinated Effort To Orchestrate An Uprising Inside The United States

Shocking Evidence Suggests Coordinated Effort To Orchestrate An Uprising Inside The United States

Tyler Durden

Tue, 06/02/2020 – 14:10

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

Violence has erupted in major cities all over America yet again today, and we are being told to brace ourselves for more rioting, looting and civil unrest in the days ahead.  The death of George Floyd was a great tragedy, and the vast majority of Americans agree that we do not want to see that sort of police brutality in our nation, and so this should actually be a moment that brings our country together.  But instead, America is being torn apart.  The protests against police brutality have been hijacked by sinister forces, and they are attempting to channel the outrage over George Floyd’s death in a very violent direction.  As you will see below, law enforcement authorities all over the U.S. are telling us that they have identified a highly organized effort to orchestrate violence, and this appears to be happening on a nationwide basis.

Let’s start by looking at what is happening in New York.  According to the top terrorism official in the entire city, “certain anarchist groups”  were making preparations for “violent interactions with police” before protests in the city even began…

On Sunday night, New York’s top terrorism cop, Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller, detailed his office’s analysis and investigation into why the New York City protests have become so violent and damaging at times.

“No. 1, before the protests began,” Miller said, “organizers of certain anarchist groups set out to raise bail money and people who would be responsible to be raising bail money, they set out to recruit medics and medical teams with gear to deploy in anticipation of violent interactions with police.”

And once the protests started, these groups used “a complex network of bicycle scouts” to direct rioters to locations where police officers would not be present…

“And they developed a complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in different directions of where police were and where police were not for purposes of being able to direct groups from the larger group to places where they could commit acts of vandalism including the torching of police vehicles and Molotov cocktails where they thought officers would not be.”

These are not just mindless angry mobs.  They are being directed with a purpose, and that is very alarming.

In Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot has publicly acknowledged that there has been “an organized effort” to turn the protests over George Floyd’s death “into something violent” in her city…

Speaking at an afternoon news conference today with other officials, Lightfoot didn’t say whether the groups are out-of-state left-wing anti-fascist organizations generally known as Antifa, right-wing agitators, local street gangs or something else. She said she’s asked three federal agencies—the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms & Explosives and the U.S. Attorney’s office—for help, with a focus on AFT’s bomb and arson unit.

“There is no doubt. This was an organized effort last night,” she said. “There were clearly efforts to subvert the peaceful process and make it into something violent.”

Lightfoot did not really elaborate on why she believes there has been “an organized effort”, but officials in other cities have been willing to give the public more specifics.

For example, law enforcement authorities in Minnesota have discovered “several caches of flammable materials” that were obviously intended to be used for rioting…

Earlier Sunday, state officials said several caches of flammable materials were found both in neighborhoods where there have already been fires and “in cars we’ve stopped as recently as this morning,” said John Harrington, state public safety commissioner. Some of the caches look like they may have been planted days ago and some only in the last 24 hours or so, he said.

Police are also finding stolen vehicles with plates removed that are being used to transport the flammable materials. Looted goods and weapons also have been found in the stolen cars, he said.

And in several other cities around the nation, law enforcement authorities have found bricks staged at or near protest sites.

On Sunday, police in Kansas City announced that they had found “stashes of bricks and rocks in & around the Plaza and Westport to be used during a riot”…

Kansas City police officers found bricks and rocks staged near protest sites around the city, stoking concerns that individuals or groups had pre-planned looting and destruction that hit the city over the weekend, the department said Sunday.

“We have learned of & discovered stashes of bricks and rocks in & around the Plaza and Westport to be used during a riot,” the department said in a tweet on Sunday.

And in Baltimore, law enforcement officials were racing to dismantle “mounds of bricks and bottles” that had been staged in downtown Baltimore…

According to sources, mounds of bricks and bottles have been found in Downtown Baltimore.

Baltimore Police confirmed they are working with law enforcement partners to sweep the area.

There are several demonstrations planned for Monday evening. Sources told Fox 45 officers are being briefed on the situation during roll call.

In New York, a “cache of bricks” just happened to be sitting directly in the path of rioters on Sunday evening…

Similarly, in New York City, video captured the moment rioters in Manhattan chanced upon a cache of bricks between St. Marks Place and Seventh Street in the East Village on Sunday evening, though no construction site appeared to be nearby.

Even down in Texas, “a large pile of bricks” was stacked up in front of the courthouse in Dallas and huge stacks of bricks were pre-staged right along a path that protesters would be taking in Frisco.

I don’t know about you, but I have a very hard time believing that all of this is just a giant coincidence.

The fact that huge piles of pre-staged bricks are suddenly showing up at protest locations all over America indicates a level of planning and coordination at a very high level.

Obviously we are dealing with something that is far more complex than just a few thousand angry people letting off some steam.

With the U.S. economy in deep disarray and with a presidential election coming up in November, anger and frustration are likely to remain at very high levels in the U.S. throughout the summer, and that will give those that are organizing these efforts more opportunities to promote violence.

Needless to say, the lawlessness that we are witnessing in the streets of our major cities is greatly alarming millions of ordinary Americans, and gun sales are going through the roof…

Gun sales surged in May as shops reported an uptick in interest and demand as the coronavirus pandemic continued and amid national protests after the Memorial Day killing of George Floyd.

“Almost, you couldn’t even keep up with it – that’s how crazy it was,” said Joe Hawk, owner of Guns & Roses in New Jersey. “After Memorial Day, it spiked again – it just went crazy again.”

Small Arms Analytics & Forecasting, a private research firm, estimated that there were more than 1.7 million gun sales in May – an 80% jump from May 2019.

The thin veneer of civilization that we all take for granted on a daily basis is disappearing, and a lot of people believe that a lot more civil unrest is ahead.

Our nation is more deeply divided than it has ever been in my entire lifetime, and that is not likely to change any time soon.

So I would very much encourage you to do whatever you need to do to get yourself and your family prepared for what is coming, because America appears to be on the precipice of complete and utter chaos.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2AAUz6t Tyler Durden

Frustrated Civil Rights Leaders Say Mark Zuckerberg ‘Lacks The Ability To Understand’ Race Issues

Frustrated Civil Rights Leaders Say Mark Zuckerberg ‘Lacks The Ability To Understand’ Race Issues

Tyler Durden

Tue, 06/02/2020 – 13:49

First, Congressional Democrats harangued Mark Zuckerberg for allowing foreign actors to meddle in the 2016 US election (which was largely bullshit). Now, the Facebook CEO is taking heat from civil rights leaders after spending nearly an hour on the phone to discuss ‘ongoing issues around his company’s policies as they relate to race, elections and other topics,’ according to Bloomberg, who said that participants were left disappointed.

Rashad Robinson, president of civil rights group Color of Change, told the outlet that Zuckerberg is clueless when it comes to racial issues.

In an interview with Bloomberg News immediately after the call, Robinson said that “the problem with my ongoing conversations with Mark, is that I feel like I spent a lot of time, and my colleagues spent a lot of time, explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it.”

…

“His employees are outraged,” said Robinson. “I’ve got outreach from some of them. Saying Black Lives Matter, saying I’m going to give money, but having your policies actually hurt black people, people will know the difference.” Some of the company’s senior staff have taken to Twitter to make their discontent public. –Bloomberg

The phone call and comments come as nationwide protests grip the nation over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for over eight minutes as a crowd of onlookers implored him to stop.

Robinson, who said he’s had dinner at Zuckerberg’s home and been on calls with the CEO to discuss similar topics, recently spoke at a Facebook shareholder meeting.

“He continues to do things and make decisions that hurt communities and put people in harm’s way and is not accountable for it,” Robinson added.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2U4liPN Tyler Durden

A Nightmare Scenario For Offshore Oil

A Nightmare Scenario For Offshore Oil

Tyler Durden

Tue, 06/02/2020 – 13:30

Via OilPrice.com,

Between low demand, soaring inventories, depressed prices, a global pandemic, and now, hurricane season, it seems a perfect storm is forming around the offshore oil industry.  The world’s offshore oil market, responsible for 30 percent of all the world’s oil production, is facing an impossible set of challenges. With oil sitting at half the price of its yearly high, and doubts forming around the future of demand, in addition to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic wreaking havoc on the global economy, companies are struggling to rein in capital spending and are beginning to rethink the future of key projects. 

The crisis has pushed much of the world’s oil production onshore in favor of more flexible rigs and lower operational costs. 

Many new offshore projects have even been put on hold as the new reality of the oil market sets in. Companies are now scrambling to suspend federal lease deadlines as the near-term looks increasingly uncertain. 

The industry’s growing troubles come just as Royal Dutch Shell was forced to airlift a number of coronavirus-infected employees from one of its offshore platforms, highlighting the risks associated with confining workers on offshore rigs during a pandemic. 

And Shell isn’t the only company grappling with outbreaks.

In recent weeks, hundreds of workers at offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, Mozambique, Canada, and Kazakhstan have been infected with COVID-19. 

The outbreaks add to the growing list of trials and tribulations the offshore industry is grappling with. 

Many firms operating offshore rigs have yet to recuperate from the last oil price collapse in 2014-2015 when prices fell from $100 to below $40, weighing on the entire industry. 

“Offshore drillers and offshore vessel providers will generally be unable to pay their total outstanding debt of 2020 based on their cash flow from operating activities, unless they are able to make sufficient capital expenditure cuts,” Jon Marsh Duesund, a partner at energy research firm Rystad Energy explained, adding, “Otherwise, they will have to turn to capital markets for refinancing.”

And with the global economy teetering on the brink, the industry may not be able to secure the funds it needs to stay afloat.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3eFS2a7 Tyler Durden