Guns, Guns, Guns!

The Supreme Court and New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett.

In the 2021 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett. This is a Second Amendment case that could have far reaching consequences on carrying guns in America.

The case basically revolves around the right, under the Second Amendment, to carry guns in public for self-defense. Two people who applied for an unrestricted license, in New York state, were denied a license and sued.

Now the Justices will determine whether or not the rights under the Second Amendment can be restricted. The Court’s decision could be very bad for America. Should the Court rule that plaintiff’s rights have been violated, it would potentially affect every gun law in the country. You can bet that the lawsuits will begin flying should this happen. The gun nuts will be frothing at the mouth to get to carry concealed guns in public.

Let’s consider this some. Many times in the aftermath of a mass shooting, someone spouts off about if only someone would have been armed, they could have intervened and stopped the massacre. I’m not buying that line of thought. Look at the Boulder, Colorado, shooting. Ten people died, including a veteran police officer. The large majority of people walking the streets are going to confront the triple F choices in a shooting incident of this type. Flight, fight, or freeze are those choices. Most untrained people will do the last, freeze. That’s perfectly understandable too. The shock of a situation like the Boulder shooting will freeze you while your brain is trying to process what’s happening. In Boulder, police were in a sustained gunfight with the shooter and could not take him down. Police officers are trained to confront violence, to overcome any fear and take action. Yet, the shooter was able to keep up the fight until deciding to peacefully surrender to the police.

Now, imagine yourself inside that store, carrying a concealed firearm. The only training you have is shooting at paper targets, that don’t shoot back. If you overcome your fear and break out of the freeze mode, you pull your gun and do what? Are you going to pull a John Wayne and have a high noon shootout with the bad guy? If you do, consider yourself dead. Are your going to tactically advance on the shooter and take him out? Do you even know how to do that from training, not watching television to give you your “training?” Somehow you get to where you see the bad guy and open fire. Have you considered who you might be endangering with your gunfire? If you miss, who might be hit and possibly killed? What about the bad guy shooting back at you, in which you might get hit and possibly killed by that fire? Think it through, you know the truth. Remember, your adrenaline is going to be pumping my friend.

Now, one BIG question. How are the police going to know YOU aren’t a bad guy and shoot you, possibly killing you? Do you expect the police to politely ask you who you are? Nope, likely you’ll likely be in a situation where police bullets are flying your way too. In dangerous situations the police are trained that everyone is a possible bad guy until proven otherwise, unless they are uniformed police. That’s for their own safety. So, still think you can take down a shooter John Q?

But, let’s look beyond a mass shooting incident to just plain everyday life. The Governor of Tennessee recently signed a bill into law allowing the carrying of concealed firearms without needing a license (Texas is working on the same type of law too). Now, your a police officer on patrol and make contact with a driver and passenger in a traffic stop. You know anyone can now carry a concealed weapon, so how are you going to approach the vehicle? The police I knew and worked with will do so with their gun in their hand. A police officer will be potentially dealing with a gun carrying citizen in any contact with members of the public. Can you blame them? I would pray that those citizens don’t make any move that a police officer would interpret as an act of reaching for a weapon, because you’d likely get a bullet or more for your movement.

Then, I consider having an armed public out there. How many hotheads will decide to handle their anger by pulling out and using their gun to settle disputes? Do you potentially want to die over a parking spot argument, or some other inane issue?

The hardcore Second Amendment believers want just what the Court may decide. They don’t believe in any laws “infringing” on their Second Amendment rights, most of them being of the Republican persuasion. Hopefully you know they’re lying right? They don’t want convicted violent felons to have guns, even if that felon has completed his/her sentence and paid “their debt to society.” Also, they don’t want those who are mentally ill from carrying guns either. After all, they are not in their right minds. Well, unrepentant felons don’t care about laws do they? If they want to they will go armed. As for the mentally ill, since they are not in their right minds they don’t know that they shouldn’t, or can’t, carrying a gun. Plus, if there is no licensing requirement, no one will put them on the radar to stop them from going around armed.

Do these type of laws guarantee our protection? No, they don’t. But, they can cause law-abiding citizens to refrain from unlawful activity. There are no absolute guarantees. Heck, the Boulder shooter was supposedly known to the FBI prior to him killing ten people. Yet, he was legally able to purchase the firearm he used to murder ten people.

I’m a gun owner and I support the Second Amendment. I just do support the belief that the Second Amendment prevents implementing reasonable gun laws, like concealed carry permits for instance.

You shouldn’t believe it either.

Until next time

It’s Not Even a Bandaid

Police reform isn’t likely for minorities in America

The jury has convicted Derek Chauvin on all counts for murdering George Floyd. Chauvin faces a maximum sentence of 12 1/2 years on the most serious count, unless the DA can show aggravating circumstances. While Chauvin is being held to account for his actions as a police officer, it isn’t even a bandaid in the field of police reform. In fact, during his trial other acts of police have caused injury and death to others. One only has to look to the suburb of Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center.

There a 25 plus year veteran officer shot and killed Duante Wright, a Black man, over what started out as a traffic stop for expired registration. It seems, according to the Brooklyn Police ex-chief, that ex-officer Kim Potter supposedly mistook her firearm for the Taser she carried. That seems absurd considering the great differences in weight, and design of the two items, but that fight is for another day. The Hennepin County DA’s Office quickly charged Potter the day after she resigned from the police department.

Duante Wright’s murder was just another example of police operating with a superiority complex. Yes, reportedly Mr Wright had an outstanding warrant, but the officer should have considered other options for taking Mr Wright into custody. It’s just a case of an officer refusing to be stopped from making an arrest. It’s become endemic within policing that an officer ignored is an officer enraged at the audacity that a person refuses to follow the authority of the officer.

Also, consider the case of the 13-year old boy shot and killed by a Chicago Police officer. Adam Toledo was shot after following the orders of Officer Eric Stillman to drop the gun Toledo appeared to be holding and to raise his hands. After raising his hands he was shot by Officer Stillman. If Adam Toledo was complying, why was he shot? Once Adam’s empty hands were raised he wasn’t presenting an immediate threat to Officer Stillman or the public. At that point Officer Stillman had options for taking Adam into custody, but failed to exercise any of them. Has policing become so skewed in this country that police now believe themselves incapable of doing anything less than using deadly force?

The conviction of Derek Chauvin is being celebrated by many, but others are standing on the other side of the jury’s verdict. Take Fox News extreme right mouthpiece Tucker Carlson. His take on the jury verdict is that the jury voted to convict because they (the jurors) didn’t want to be attacked by mobs if they acquitted Derek Chauvin.

“The jury in the Derek Chauvin trial came to a unanimous and unequivocal verdict this afternoon: Please Don’t Hurt Us,” he said on his show, according to Raw Story’s article.

Now, we know Tucker Carlson peddles the outrageous. If any behavior is to be maligned or twisted, Tucker is likely the one to spout off to his viewers. His commentary shouldn’t be considered to be actual news of any kind. Even his own network argued that viewers should be skeptical of Carlson’s comments and a federal judge agreed when tossing out a lawsuit against Carlson. That said, too many on the far right look to Carlson for their understanding of the activities he “reports” on. To the American people, perception is reality. By his comments Carlson appears to think that the police are always right. Of course, he’s not the only talking head at Fox News who pander to extremist right viewers.

According to the Washington Post, there have been 984 fatal shootings by police in the last year. While only a small percentage of fatal shootings by police are classified as unjustifiable, it’s not the only evidence of the attitude of police towards the very citizens they are exercising authority over. While deadly force is the worst case, other interactions by police show their contempt for the general public and minorities especially.

A NJ.com article reports that Perth Amboy police in New Jersey stopped a group of teens, mostly Black and Latino, riding bicycles in the city. Now these teens were seen to be riding their bikes in traffic, at times causing a hazard to traffic. When the group stopped for officers, one officer told the teens that their bikes “are supposed to have licenses and all that kind of stuff.” The unidentified officer went on to promise the teens that their bikes would not be confiscated by police. That didn’t last. Another officer, reportedly a Sergeant, ordered the six officers at the scene to confiscate the bikes. When one of the teens argued with this second officer, he was arrested, handcuffed, and placed in a patrol car. Was this the way to appropriately handle this situation? Wasn’t the verbal warning by the first officer sufficient? Apparently not since the second officer decided that they needed to be showed who’s boss in Perth Amboy.

Policing is not a profession for people incapable of using good judgment and discretion. It’s a tough job and a dangerous job at times. However, it’s also a job that hardened officers against the citizenry and brought them to the position of believing they hold unaccountable authority over everyone. Derek Chavin’s conviction will no more bring positive change to policing across America than did other cases of excessive/deadly force by police.

The ultimate responsibility for the failure to bring nationwide change to the policing of this country falls on the public. Those Americans who are agitating for change aren’t enough. The great majority must join their voices to the demands for change. Unfortunately, this will not likely happen since most citizens either agree with the police, or are afraid of standing out on the “wrong” side of this issue.

The attitudes of police in general won’t change until the public forces that change.

Until next time

Good Cop, Bad Cop

The Broken Trust by American Police

There are times, like the past several days since my last post, that one should stop and observe what is happening around the country. Between mainstream media and internet news organizations there is a wealth of information to look over on just about any topic.

With all that is happening in the US, from Black Lives Matter protests to the devastation being caused by the coronavirus to American lives, the economy, and the loss of faith in the actions by the federal government to get the coronavirus under control, we are lost and struggling to see a path of safety.

President Trump has released his “dogs of war” of federal law enforcement agencies on cities in the United States. In at least the city of Portland, these officers have taken unconstitutional actions, snatching people off the streets without probable cause. It has been observed that there are officers without officer and agency identification visibly displayed on their uniforms. People taken were placed into unmarked vans and driven away. This is not the way law enforcement is suppose to operate.

But it just isn’t just federal law enforcement that has been working outside the boundaries of law. There has been reporting, a lot of reporting, on the excessive use of force and brutality by police agencies around America. From the NYPD to the LAPD and in between, police officers have acted as if they are free to act as they please without repercussions.

The trust that a large portion of US citizens have in law enforcement has been broken by the methods being employed by police around the United States. It seems though that any Republican elected to state or federal governments are doing their best to distract Americans from these excesses by pointing to the violence of protests around the country. They call anyone exercising their 1st Amendment rights anarchists and criminals. The general broad brush that is used to justify unacceptable behavior by police in America is like excusing the lynching of a Black man.

There is a fairly visible record of these excesses, or more accurately brutalities, being committed. Besides the many deaths of Black Americans here are some examples from this year alone:

• Police pull 15 year-old teenager off his bicycle by his neck.
• Six Atlanta police officers charged in forceful arrests of college students in car.
• Buffalo police officers shove 75 year-old at protest.
• Louisville police officer fired pepper balls at journalist.
• Fairfax, VA, police officer charged with assault over stun gun used on Black male.

Is there any misunderstanding about a lot of police behavior going on in America? The above behavior isn’t to be expected of every law enforcement officer in America though. There are good cops, right?

We constantly hear that these “bad” cops are just a few rotten apples. Using that premise, we should believe that all the “good” cops, who regularly remain silent about the actions of bad cops, is an honorable, law abiding behavior. If a good cop remains silent, isn’t that good cop then being a bad cop? In fact, it happens all the time. Cops remain silent about the behavior of those of the “thin blue line,” to include supervisory officers. Where is the honorable behavior in that? So, telling us it’s only a few bad apples is a lie. Any and every officer remaining silent to actions of brutality or misconduct are just as bad as those “bad apples.”

Why should citizens trust the police to “protect and serve” when police officers won’t even protect the rights of an arrestee, or serve the public good when they use excessive force? Why should citizens trust the police when “bad apples” are continually protected by their department, the district attorney, and the police unions who insist their officers do no wrong?

There are nationwide calls for defunding and dismantling police agencies. While dismantling police agencies is not a reasonable idea, defunding police is when tied to the ideas of removing responsibilities from police agencies and shifting them to other agencies. I have written of this issue before, you can read it here.

Changing the dynamic of policing must occur in order for trust to be rebuilt between the police and public. The largest change is the stopping of abuse and brutality by police across the country, including federal law enforcement. Anyone stop and arrested by police must be done using the minimum amount of force necessary to make the arrest, which means starting – generally – with verbal deescalation. Further, once in police custody, the police must protect the arrestees’ life from all harm or death. The police must insure that the arrestees’ rights are also protected.

Police agencies have the responsibility to weed out bad cops, not protect them. Police unions have the duty to help weed out bad officers, if for no other reason than to protect the reputation of the good officers. Individual officers have the responsibility and the duty to turn in officers violating department rules & regulations and those violating the law.

If any officer can’t do their duty honorably and lawfully, then they should resign and find a new career.

Until the police are forced off their high horses and brought back to reality, we will continue to see the behaviors of excessive force and brutality.

Until next time

The Secret Police

Who will they come for next?

The darkness of the night was only occasionally pushed back by a streetlight. There were still people walking along the sidewalks. Down the road approached a car. It stopped between streetlights, in the shadows of the surrounding buildings. Three men stepped from the vehicle and walked over to a man nearby. The three men stopped the man and within a minute the man was pushed into the vehicle. Nothing was said to the man as he was hustled to the vehicle. The three men climbed inside and the vehicle drove off into the night.

Sounds like the activities of the Nazi Gestapo before and during World War II. Alas, this is not from World War II, but from a night in 2020 in the city of Portland, OR. Wait, what? This is America and people have rights ya know? Well, tell that to the three federal law enforcement officers in military style camouflage fatigues with no identifying patches, no name labels and only the word “Police” on the vests being wore. Nor are the vehicles marked either.

Anyone older than my old tennis shoes know that this is unlawful behavior by these federal agents, in fact unconstitutional! The subjects are not told anything. They are taken to, some have said, a federal building. Some are charged with a crime, some are not. For those not charged there is no record of an arrest. Uncharged individuals are later released without any explanation at all. This gives Department of Homeland Security “plausible deniability” or, in other words, it never happened.

DHS Emblem

Chad Wolf, acting DHS Director visited Portland and labelled all the protestors as anarchists. This is a tactic to dehumanize the protestors and insinuate that the protests are unlawful. Pray tell, what are the crimes of these “anarchists”? Spray painting graffiti on federal buildings, some vandalism and trespassing. Obviously dangerous felons.

Who’s responsible for the Gestapo-like tactics? It can only be Donald Trump, our fascist president. He’s stepped over the line, again, in his actions as president. When he got static from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about using military personnel against US citizens, he chose a different group to go after US civilians.

I have to wonder what’s next? Will there be other cities where Trump’s Gestapo dogs whisk people off the streets? When it comes to Donald Trump anything is probable. As for his goons, they have violated their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the rights contained therein. They fit right in as a part of the over militarized police forces in the country. They are uncaring of their tactics and only act, just point and off these federal hounds go.

If the goal is to put fear in the hearts of protestors, it won’t stop the protests. In all likelihood it will stiffen the protestors resolve all across America to continue the struggles against systemic racism and government oppression. Donald Trump fails, as he does in so many things, to grasp the depth of commitment of all the people protesting and supporting the protests.

But, what should the people do about these tactics? If you see it occurring, record it. Yell for the detained individual to shout out their name. Write down or record license plates of the unmarked vehicles being used by the federal agents. Notify the press of the incident and also get it out on the internet. Notify Democratic members of Congress and ask for them to demand answers from the Department of Homeland Security. Most of all, as scary as it is, don’t let it stop demands for change. It sure won’t get the public to trust the police.

Time will tell whether or not other cities have DHS agents playing Gestapo. I guess it depends on how much Donald Trump likes what he ordered done to the civilians of the cities. President, using the term loosely, Trump has a lot to answer for, either now or at some future date.

Until next time

“It’s Freedom of Speech”

President Trump says of the Confederate Flag

This is not the article I planned for today, but this article reflects current news reports. Today’s article will actually cover two topics.

President Donald Trump spoke to the issue of the Confederate battle flag when asked a question during an interview with CBS News’ Catherine Herridge, as published by Politico.

When Herridge asked Trump for his view on the Confederate battle flag, he responded, “I know people that like the Confederate flag, and they’re not thinking about slavery”. He went on to speak about NASCAR recent prohibition that the flag is not allowed, in any form, at NASCAR raceways. Trump also said it was free speech.

CSA Battle Flag

While Trump is correct that people have the right to believe in and display the Confederate battle flag, it is a symbol of slavery. By extension, those who support the Confederate battle flag believe in all that the, long dead, Confederate States of America stood for. This includes slavery! They’ll lie to high heaven that it’s not true and that they are not racists, both of which are outright lies. Supporting the Confederate battle flag would, logically, make one surmise that those supporters want the return of the Confederacy, slavery and all. Comparing this flag with BLM, which Trump did, is abhorrent. BLM is a movement to gain full civil rights and treatment for Black Americans. Oppression on the one hand, rights on the other. They are not the same.

Pages: 1 2

They Do, But They Really Don’t

Defund and Disband the Police

From the younger and more progressive generations (2nd half of the Millennial and beyond) want to defund the police in the US. But, really they don’t. What they want to do is disband the police system and do without it. They have agreed to defund police as a compromise to the older generations.

I had a discussion today with a young person of Generation Z, who patiently explained to me how the police be should disbanded and replaced with a different system that would remove the need for the police to patrol the streets of America.

In this article I will look at how the current policing model can be changed. Remember that currently policing is reactive, not proactive. That tells us that the motto “to protect and serve” doesn’t mean what it says. Keep in mind that these suggestions are not all inclusive. What I present is the framework that can be built.

To begin, I will pick apart crimes and how they could be handled differently. Most crimes are over by the time police are notified and can arrive at the scene. With that being the case, why do we need police officers to respond? With the appropriate training in investigating, interviewing, and report writing, a non-police officer can respond and document the crime. A trained crime scene technician would also respond to collect any evidence. This would meet the needs of the citizens in the community. With this model, any crime can be handled regardless of what the specific crime is, like theft, burglary, robbery, murder, etc.

But what if the crime is still in progress? In the new paradigm I currently envision (meaning I can adapt to better ideas), that there would be a small team of sworn & armed police officers that would respond. This small team, say five officers, would secure the scene and if required, take any offender into custody. Then the scene would be turned over to the civilian “investigator” and the crime scene technician. The team of officers would depart to handle any other duties they are assigned.

Okay, but what about crimes like domestic disturbance calls? When the call comes to the dispatch center, the dispatcher would determine key information. That information would include whether or not the other involved party is still on scene and whether or not weapons are involved or present at the scene. If there are weapons involved, send the team of officers to secure the scene. Then a trained crisis intervention worker would take over and handle the problem. If necessary, a crime scene technician would also respond to collect evidence.

Yes, but who is going to handle all the crazy drivers on the streets? I’ll answer by saying we can use alternative enforcement. License plate scanners and cameras can “catch” violators. Then a ticket can be sent in the mail to the vehicle’s registered owner. If the registered owner denies driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, it wouldn’t matter. They are the registered owner, so they get the ticket. In the future they should be more selective over who uses their vehicle.

Sounds reasonable so far, but what about people who have warrants out for their arrest? How is that going to be handled. My answer is that most people will appear in court, especially after the justice system has been overhauled so that there is no disparity in “punishments.” While this is a topic all on its own, I will say that any violent/dangerous offenders can be handled by the police officer team (unless or until a better option comes to light).

As you can see this basic outline for handling crime in the community is accomplished with no heavy-handed ways from over militarized police agencies. There would be no unions to shield officers and interfere with the operations in this policing paradigm.

These aspects would be good steps towards a viable new policing paradigm. Police budgets would be cut down, with the money going to other areas in a community. More money to social services, education opportunities, and job training programs for instance. Money could be spent to fight poverty, improve living conditions, help first-time home buyers even. There are probably many more areas that would benefit as well. Careful planning is paramount to successfully creating this new paradigm. Plus, we must remain willing to change and adapt as better ideas and options present themselves.

This new policing paradigm would report to a civilian oversight committee representing all the different segments of the citizenry. Accountability must be removed from a internal organizational chain of command. The “Chief of Police” would answer to the oversight committee. Transparency of all aspects of the paradigm would have the goal of gaining and maintaining the trust of the community. The people must know and see accountability working to keep policing as is done using the practices of being fair, firm, and consistent.

The time has come for the next evolution of policing in America. Are you ready for change?

Until next time

Honorable Elected Republicans in Congress

Are there only two?

Note: It is really hard to get posts I’m working on finished when I continually have to speak out on news reports that pull away my attention.

Are US Senators Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski the only Republicans in the United States Congress with any honor in their character? It seems so after Donald Trump’s tweet today about the 75 year old peaceful protestor, Martin Gugino, who was shoved by Buffalo police officers. Mr Gugino fell to the ground, striking his head on the concrete and sustained a head injury. As officers walked past Mr Gugino, you could see blood coming from his head. I’m sure you’re aware of the incident.

Pages: 1 2

Police and Society

What One State is Doing About It

Americans have heard and seen reports, many with accompanying video footage, of excessive use of force and brutality against protestors and some rioters. We have the two Buffalo police officers who shove a 75 year old man, causing him to fall to the ground and hitting his head on the pavement. Then, while visibly bleeding from his head, he is ignored by many officers. They fail to render the man any assistance.

There have been reports of driving a patrol vehicle into a crowd of protestors, violently knocking protestors to the ground, police striking a man in the head, violently attacking and dispersing peaceful protestors to clear the way for a photo op, and so on. Members of the nation’s supposedly highly trained law enforcement personnel seem to have lost their ability to remain professionals.

Departments have relieved officers pending investigation into their actions, fired officers, and officers have been charged for their alleged violations. That’s all well and good, but what about the field supervisors who should be controlling their officers? Are they to get off without any disciplinary action? If there were no supervisors, then the command staff needs be held accountable. Also, more training at all levels may be called for too.

I acknowledge that officers have had to deal with rioting and looting, yet that is no excuse to be brutal towards anyone. We look to our law enforcement officers to work at a higher standard of behavior, to be professionals who stay within the laws.

Law enforcement agencies need our trust and we need to be able to trust them. Police have something no other civil group has, they can take away our freedom. It is vitally important that we know they will never let their professionalism fail them. We need our police, they do hold a thin blue line between a safe society and complete criminal anarchy. If we can’t trust them, then our society is doomed.

Right now in the United States there is a national upheaval occurring. Between the murder of George Floyd, the pandemic, and the tanked economy, we are teetering daily. We are unsure of what tomorrow will bring. When our national leaders fail us, as they are currently, we look to our state government to lead us and to our law enforcement to keep us safe.

America needs these protests to continue, to fight against systemic racial injustice. It needs to be done by Americans of all races, standing together to support our most discriminated against racial group – African Americans. Because until Black Lives Matter we will never be able to say that All Lives Matter.

Until next time

The 21st Century Civil Rights Movement, Part 2

Where Do We Go Now?

Please start with Part 1.

There are many areas in society that need reform, so where do we start? I believe we start with the most visible organizations, the nation’s local, county, and state police agencies. How these agencies operate, are supervised and controlled must be changed.

Police Reform:

Here is what is needed to begin the never-ending change:

Civilian oversight boards must be instituted for each agency, with the authority to access all necessary records to review police actions, with results reported publicly. This includes personnel and disciplinary records, incident reports, body and car cam footage, witness statements and recordings that are available.

Laws need to be enacted to outlaw any type of dangerous physical restraint, such as choke holds or knees to the neck. Only the minimum force necessary must ever be used and only after deescalation tactics have failed or are determined to be untenable.

Agency policies and procedures must be enacted and enforced in the steps an officer must take once a suspect is in handcuffs or under some form of physical restraint. These procedures must result in protecting EVERYONE‘S life as much as is humanly possible. Policies must be implemented that removes officers that have proven complaints against them. The removed officer should be retrained or terminated, as determined by department leadership.

Pages: 1 2

The 21st Century Civil Rights Movement, Part 1

Millennials & Gen Z Lead the Way

Mr George Floyd

As we all know, or should know, George Floyd was murdered by four Minneapolis police officers on May 25, 2020, and that it was captured on cellphone video. Mr Floyd was arrested by police for allegedly using a counterfeit twenty dollar bill to buy a pack of cigarettes. For this heinous offense, Mr Floyd paid with a death penalty being imposed on him. He was “tried”, “convicted”, and “executed” by members of the Minneapolis “Thin Blue Line.”

Mr Floyd was prone on the ground, handcuffed, and had ex-police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on his neck. This lasted for well over eight minutes. Mr Floyd repeatedly said, “I can’t breathe,” but was ignored by the four officers. Ex-officers Tou Thao, J Alexander Kueng, and Thomas Lane stood by observing while Chauvin murdered Mr Floyd. Not one of them rendered any assistance to Mr Floyd to save his life.

From left to right Derek Chauvin, Tou Thao, J Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane

Mr Floyd is just one more name in a long and sad list of African Americans killed by police in America, with many of the police being found not guilty by a jury or never charged with a crime. Finally, after nine days, all four Minneapolis ex-officers have been charged by the Minnesota Attorney General. Chauvin, originally charged with 3rd degree murder, is now charged with 2nd degree murder. The other three ex-officers have been charged with aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder. Each faces the maximum penalty of 40 years in prison. At least, unlike Mr Floyd, they will get to breathe.

Pages: 1 2