What Is a Christian’s Duty to Unjust Government?

I appreciate your experience but that has nothing to do with incidents like the Floyd one with significant video reconstruction (not just the choke video but store camera video of the previous interaction) or the other cases where black men are killed by police with little provocation.

The thought that comes to mind for me is that while the apprehension of any “noncompliant” suspect is going to look ugly, that doesn’t mean that previous noncompliance entitles them to continue forcible restraint when they’ve already got the suspect at the point (cuffed, leg cuffs, etc..) where “he isn’t going anywhere fast”. If we’re going to build on Tyler’s story, imagine he’d been sitting on the neck of that suspect a few minutes after he was cuffed and unconscious.

At that point, I don’t care how much he resisted, because it doesn’t matter. I care about whether the force used is proportionate to the risk the suspect posed, and yes, that has everything to do with the crime he was accused of and the likelihood of his escape or further mayhem.

In this case, he was cuffed—leg cuffs would be possible if they were not actually used—so he wasn’t going anywhere quickly. (you try to run with your hands tied behind your back—it’s not easy) His crime was passing a fake $20, and that suggests that he was merely a “courier” for a bigger counterfeiting operation, and he might know some names connected if you can persuade him that he’ll get a light (or no) sentence if he coughs them up. Most guys moving to a new city and “starting new” probably don’t have what it takes to produce a reasonably

In that light, forcibly restraining him when he was very sick/unconscious/dying was not just bad optics and begging for prosecution/firing, but it was also incredibly bad tactics.

But here are some good thoughts on reasonable doubt and fair trials. I could be a juror in Chauvin’s trial because I’m prepared to find him guilty or not guilty based on the evidence at trial, not the media evidence. I don’t think Mark or Bert could honestly say the same thing, and that’s a serious problem.

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-natu…

Just for reference, here’s Andrew McCarthy on why the claim that quickly arresting Mr. Chauvin would somehow violate due process is nonsense. Regarding Mr. Wilson, read it, and am yet more convinced that I did well to part ways with “Blog and Mablog” when he decided to call Boz Tchividjian an “ambulance chaser” and picked a fight with Rachael Denhollander in the same post.

And sure, Mr. Myers, you’re unbiased. Uh-huh. That’s exactly what I think when a person’s response to a comment urging a person’s arrest is to portray that response as if the initial commenter had urged a person’s execution. (and then you repeated that sentiment a few times in this thread) Sorry, brother, but you’re pretty knee-jerk in favor of the police in this regard, to the point your comments read almost as a parody of the police union.

Please quote where I or Tyler said that arresting Chauvin at any point in time would have violated due process. I’m serious, Bert. You’re into misrepresentation territory here. (It would really help if you understood anything about law, due process, police procedure, and so forth, even on a lay level.)

As for Wilson, the fact that there are two other completely unrelated topics on which you disagree with him has nothing to do with the merits of his thoughts on reasonable doubt — which you of course make no attempt to respond to. Ad hominem attacks are not arguments. What is your response, on the merits, to the substantive points he makes in that post about reasonable doubt? Do you disagree with him on reasonable doubt? If so, why?

Thanks for the aspersions on my character — which of course are not arguments. I take it you’re agreeing with me that you could not legitimately sit on Chauvin’s jury? If so, your personal attacks are irrelevant, aren’t they?

As to the linked comment, I’m happy for any and all here to weigh the evidence. You’re mis-describing both the comment I responded to and my response. JD Miller didn’t merely urge Chauvin’s arrest, as you’d know if you’d actually read his words, which were, “I still cannot understand why these cops were not immediately arrested and video footage of them being cuffed and processed with their photos and booking numbers in the background posted for all to see so that people could see that justice was swift and fair.” Quite a bit more going on there than merely an arrest, wouldn’t you say? He urged public treatment that we don’t impose on any wrongdoer and, yes, I objected in plainly (to reasonable readers) sarcastic elaboration to point out the logical end of Miller’s proposal: “But I think you’re right: all 4 officers should have been executed as summarily as you think George Floyd was, with no investigation, right? Because that’s both the American and biblical approach to justice, as we all know.” Notice, Bert, that I never said I was quoting Miller or using his words. Those words were my words, responding to the logic of Miller’s words. In other words, you’re wrong, plainly, again.

If you think my defense of due process and evidentiary-based legal decision-making (as opposed to partially-informed, media and emotion and mob-influenced decision-making) constitutes knee-jerk support of police who may have abused their position, there’s something wrong with you. I hope at some point you outgrow it, or out-think it, or out-disciple it. It’s not healthy as a person or as a citizen.

Given your rage and your irrationality on the subject, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to anyone to continue the discussion with you. There’s nothing rational, logical, or useful that can be accomplished with you. God bless.

Where did you implicitly argue that arresting the officers immediately would violate due process? Well, here you go. And here. And here.

Just sayin’.

Regarding your (and Tyler’s) notion that the reason they were fired is “politics”, no, absolutely false. It simply happens to be a fact that the MPD only allows (wrongly IMO, but that’s another issue) a knee to the neck in very limited circumstances, and those circumstances do not include “the suspect is cuffed and unconscious” or “the suspect has no pulse and his bladder has emptied”.

As any responsible carry permit holder knows, when the threat stops—say when the suspect is cuffed and isn’t going anywhere or doing anything—so does the use of force.

Bert wrote:

Regarding your (and Tyler’s) notion that the reason they were fired is “politics”, no, absolutely false.

I did not write that. I said politics was responsible for the speed of the main suspect being charged.

Bert thank you for the article by Andrew Mccarthy. He is not just a columnist. He is the former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I would take his expertise on this subject over any of us.

I in no way meant that the officers should not get to defend themselves or that an indictment had to come immediately. The point I was making is that this was an obvious powder keg and by showing that the wheels of justice were turning swiftly and that these officers were not getting any favoritism, we could put a little water on the powder. In order for that to be seen clearly by a lot of people that we knew would be upset (some of us understand why- others seem to not quite get it), those people should have been able to see with their own eyes that the officers were being held accountable just like they saw with their own eyes what happened to George Floyd.

I do have another question. If a police officer robs a bank while on duty and in uniform, should we wait a week before arresting him if he is caught on the bank surveillance camera pointing his gun and taking the money and the bank personel are telling us that he did it?

Give me a rational police reason to keep the full weight of your knee on a suspect’s neck, pressed against concrete, for 8.5 minutes, while handcuffed, surrounded by 3 other officers (and I believe 2 more were on the scene) with 3 of those minutes being after the man passed out and was totally unresponsive. And then explain how that action is reasonable while investigating a charge of a $20 forgery.

As for being on a jury, I am totally able to acquit if the officer can answer the above.

It’s almost as if we need:

1. a full, non-rushed, impartial investigation by professionals
2. responsible referral of reasonable charges by an attorney confident she can prove the elements of the offense
3. followed by a trial

I am concerned the MN AG upped the charge on the main suspect. If he’s confident he can prove it, then no worries. If it was a political gamble, then the man is acting foolishly. If they lose any of these cases at trial, prepare for more rioting.

Why might he lose? This is something laypeople often don’t understand, but I’ll try to make it understandable:

1. all statutes are composed of building blocks called “elements”
2. if you wish to prove a subject committed a crime, you have to prove every “element” of the offense
3. if you can’t prove every element of the offense, you do not have a case (not that this has stopped investigators and attorneys from trying!)

Consider RCW 48.17.530(1)(e), one of our typical regulatory fraud statutes. It reads, “Intentionally misrepresenting the terms of an actual or proposed insurance contract or application for insurance.” If I wish to prove an insurance agent violated RCW 48.17.530(1)(e), I need to prove the following:

1. A misrepresentation occurred
2. The subject committed the misrepresentation
3. The subject did it intentionally

I can’t say its “obvious” or “clear as day” that this happened. What happened, exactly? If, for example, there is ambiguity over whether a misrepresentation even occurred, I have no case. The same for intent; I have to show she made the misrepresentation on purpose. If I can’t do that, I can’t use that statute. If I can’t use that statute, I have to pivot to a form of negligence without intent that carries a much lesser sanction; something like 48.30.090.

We routinely deal with consumers who are infuriated with us. They don’t want to hear about the nuts and bolts. They feel they were wronged, and now we’re “letting” people get away with it. Not at all. We just can’t prove it. We aren’t a police state.

Back to Mr. Floyd. If the investigation was thorough, the charges appropriate, and the attorney confident in the facts, then I have no worries. However, given the explicit pressure in this case, I fear it won’t all quite work out that way.

I doubt Mr. Ellison himself will take the case. Only if Mr. Ellison is absolutely confident of victory will he take it himself. Everybody in State government knows AG stands for “aspiring governor,” and if he screws up this case he won’t get anywhere near the Statehouse. He will likely farm it out to a poor soul who will be sacrificed if she screws up.

[TylerR]

Bert wrote:

Regarding your (and Tyler’s) notion that the reason they were fired is “politics”, no, absolutely false.

I did not write that. I said politics was responsible for the speed of the main suspect being charged.

Either way, as your subsequent comment makes clear, not much of a distinction. Your comment makes clear that you believe that an officer ought to be charged only after a pretty long investigation, a courtesy that the rest of us do not get unless we’re politically connected.

For my part, the question of whether to charge the officers hinges on the answers to two questions. First of all, is the tactic displayed one that was endorsed for the situation involved? Second, should the officers have known that the use of the tactic could lead to death and other adverse consequences?

At the site, the other officers could have figured out that the answers to these questions were “no” and “yes”. I’ve known since I was about ten that when you go for the neck, you are strongly likely to end up hurting someone severely—and that therefore, whether it’s a fight between kids, in wrestling practice, or whatever, you intervene if you can if you see someone going after another man’s neck. Period.

Again, what matters here is not the severity of the crime, and not the apparent fact that the deceased fought arrest. What matters is whether the use of force at the time was appropriate for a cuffed, unconscious suspect. And like it or not, that was pretty obvious from all the testimony available at the scene: NO.