Chauvin Trial

I’ve been following the trial of Derek Chauvin vicariously through Andrew Branca’s posts on Legal Insurrection.

The prosecution is wrapping up their “case” and the defense should start with theirs today or tomorrow. The Judge is apparently expecting closing arguments and deliberation to begin on Monday.

Having followed the “case” of the prosecution, and without even having heard anything but cross examination from the defense, I am convinced at this point that if there is a guilty verdict it is a political one not a legal one. Remember, the standard is “reasonable doubt”. If there is a reasonable doubt that the person accused didn’t commit the crime, they are to be found not guilty. In my humble opinion, the prosecution’s case left huge amorphous blobs of reasonable doubt laying around.

In my opinion, if the jury finds Chauvin guilty of anything, it will be as a result of the jury’s fear of repercussions both in the form of riots in major cities, and the potential of them individually being doxxed and their lives being ruined, if not taken outright.

I’d say the most likely outcome is going to be a hung jury mistrial and we’ll have to do this all over again. I think this will happen because there will be at least one juror willing to stand up for what’s right and say “reasonable doubt exists and Chauvin should be acquitted”, and there will be at least one juror who is fearful enough to demand a guilty verdict even though the evidence doesn’t support it. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the jury does, if those two sides stick to their guns…hung jury.

I also have no doubt that the hung jury announcement will result in violence and riots and will make it even more difficult for Chauvin to achieve a fair trial in the next go-round…partially because, thanks to the media, the rioting crowd will find it inconceivable that anyone would fail to convict Chauvin…it’s GOT to be racist because he’s so obviously guilty right?

Legal Insurrection is also on top of that aspect of the story.

What I can say with confidence is that as with the George Zimmerman trial, the public is being misinformed by the mainstream media that this is an open-and-shut case, and if Chauvin is found not guilty it’s because of systemic racism in society and the judicial system.

So, that’s my prediction: There will be a hung jury in spite of the fact that the evidence does not support a conviction, the media will portray it, and the BLM crowd will react to it, as a huge miscarriage of justice and cities will burn. Again. Then we’ll queue up for a new trial in which it will be even more difficult to find an unbiased jury who will reach a verdict based on the evidence and not on fear and we may end up with another mistrial. Rinse, lather and repeat until the prosecution finally is able to seat a jury who will unanimously vote to avert the riots and Chauvin will be convicted.

Being a prediction, I obviously could be almost correct, or even wildly wrong, but any way you cut it, Chauvin’s life as a productive, happy citizen is over. Even if he’s acquitted, he’s going to be bankrupt, he’ll never be able to work again in any capacity, he’ll be hounded by the media and unable to go out in public likely for decades, etc.

All for following published, established Minneapolis Police procedure in doing the job he was tasked to do.

What rational person would want to be a cop in this environment? What a wonderful career: risk your very life on a daily basis to serve the public, while working terrible hours, dealing with the worst society has to offer, for marginal pay and as a reward, you’ll have the opportunity to win worldwide vilification, the ruin of your life and the possibility of a long prison term as a result of doing the very job they pay you to do.

Sign me up.

People think this is going to make policing better? In what alternate reality do you work very hard to convince every rational human being that “cop” is not a desirable profession and yet get high quality, dedicated candidates to apply?

It’s a feature, not a bug. That’s the only rational conclusion.

If it weren’t for the fact that I have to live here too (not in Minneapolis, but in a relatively liberal city in a relatively liberal state), I’d almost be rooting for these idiots to get what they’re wishing for. In fact, when the purchase of my secret remote hideout is finalized and I’ve had some time to get it prepped for emergency evac, my incentive to root against their success will be greatly reduced. It would be entertaining in a “horrifying train crash” sort of way to watch from a safe distance as they try to live in the dystopian nightmare that seems to be their heart’s desire.

Share

Question Answered

A while back, I read about how the father of the Thug-Bully in Ferguson MO, who’s death sparked the BLM movement was asking where all that sweet, sweet BLM money was going…’cause they certainly weren’t seeing any of it in Ferguson.

BLM cofounder Patrisse Cullors responded that not only was the organization “focused on a ‘need to reinvest into Black communities.'”, but they were also “taking the dollars we were able to raise in 2020 and building out the institution we’ve been trying to build for the last seven and a half years”

Well, now we can see the clear fruits of that labor:

A secluded mini-compound tucked into L.A.’s rustic and semi-remote Topanga Canyon was recently sold for a tad more than $1.4 million to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled by Patrisse Khan-Cullors, 37-year-old social justice visionary and co-founder of the galvanizing and, for some, controversial Black Lives Matter movement.

So see: BLM is properly investing the money they take in to support black communities by purchasing their leadership expensive homes in them. Oh…wait…whoops.

So, I guess “investing” in black communities doesn’t involve actually, you know, living in them.

In all fairness, I can’t say I blame her. I wouldn’t want to live in the environment that the BLM movement has engendered either what with the skyrocketing crime rates and penchant for breaking out in rioting, firebombing and looting in memory of any black criminal killed or injured by police while resisting arrest. Who would want to live like that? If I’d made millions of dollars of the past few years I’d be moving to a less volatile neighborhood as quick as I could too.

Share

How SHOCKING!

Another case of racist graffiti on campus turns out to be a hoax:

Albion College and the Albion Department of Public Safety say a student is responsible for racist graffiti found in a dorm last weekend.

Albion police brought the 21-year-old Black male in for questioning on April 6, according to Chief Scott Kipp. The student admitted to creating most of the graffiti, and video evidence from Albion’s Campus Safety Department confirms the statements made by the student, Kipp said.

I’m sure this was a good intentioned, but misguided effort to “start a conversation” since no one in the country is talking about racism or white supremacy right now.[/sarcasm]

Whenever I see a story about a display of blatant racism anywhere really, but on college campuses in particular, my first instinct is to dismiss it as a hoax…and calculations, about 99 times out of 100, my instinct is correct. In fact, I can’t recall an incident like this in the past 10 or 15 years that actually turned out to be legitimate racism. Can anyone else?

Hat tip to The Last Refuge.

Share

News

Sorry for the dearth of posting lately.

I’ve had a long time dream of owning a decent sized piece of land in remote location for the triple purpose of: vacation camping spot, zombie apocalypse refuge and potential site for our retirement home.

I had a particular area of a particular state in mind and have been looking for a suitable location off and on for several years now.

The Wife had found four possibilities fairly close together so Last weekend we took a trip out there and had a look. One of them turned out to be pretty much just what we were looking for and since then we’ve been working on making that happen. It’s actually quite a bit smaller than we had in mind (16.4 acres rather than the 25 to 30 we were hoping for) but it’s laid out in a way that suits our purposes very well and there’s some additional land around it that may come up for sale at some point so we may be able to expand our holdings. Being smaller made it less expensive than what we were expecting to spend as well, so there’s that.

Anyway, since then we’ve been working feverishly on getting the money together and putting in an offer. Our offer was accepted, so now we’ve just got to get through all the closing stuff. If everything goes according to plan, the land should be ours in about a month. That’s what’s been occupying my spare time lately so I just haven’t had much time for blogging.

Share

Anti-gun/left projection

They’re at it again.

Our friends on the left, some of them quoting the comic and social analyst Dave Chappelle, maintained yesterday that soaring legal gun purchases by black Americans would cause conservative white Americans to rethink their support for gun rights. As it happened, we had a real-time test of that theory on Twitter yesterday when The Hill tweeted about blacks buying guns. Liberals chimed in to say white conservatives would blanch. Instead, white conservatives cheered:

I’ve actually seen reports about this in a few places. A couple identified it accurately, but most seemed mystified or at a minimum brushed it off as comedy.

This is just another prime example of the lefts projection. They are racists, pure and simple. They believe that blacks are inferior to whites. Why else would they believe that blacks are incapable of competing with whites in a purely merit based system? Why else would they believe blacks to be incapable of a common, everyday function like obtaining lawful ID? Why else would they believe blacks to be incapable of grasping and learning universal concepts like math and grammar?

Because they are racists, but can’t admit it to themselves, they project that racism onto others as a self-defense mechanism.

This causes them to have inaccurate views of the opinions of those others, hence their incorrect assumptions about our beliefs and intentions.

It’s actually quite sad that such a large portion of our population could be so mentally and emotionally crippled in this way.

I wonder how disappointed they’ll be when their eagerly anticipated GOP support for gun control fails to materialize.

At any rate, I, like the vast majority of other lawful gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, offer my welcome to new law abiding gun owners of all races, creeds, ethnicities, genders and every other category that the left loves to divide us into.

In view of that, I’d like to remind people about the Open Invitation that I and others have been offering for many years to provide basic safety and marksmanship training to new gun owners free of charge. This offer is open to any lawful gun owner or prospective gun owner.

Share

UNPOSSIBLE

You know all those laws that the lefties want to pass to prevent mass shootings…you know, gun bans, universal background checks, waiting periods, concealed carry only by the rich and connected, magazine capacity limits, all that stuff?

They have all of those things in California. So, of course, mass shootings can’t happen there.

ORANGE, Calif. (KABC) — Investigators are expected to release new information Thursday on a shooting at a building complex in the city of Orange Wednesday that left four people dead, including a child, and one person injured.

You won’t see this story in the main stream media for two reasons. The one stated above, and also because (and I’m going out on a limb here since no details have been released) the odds are this was (as usual) not a case of a “white supremacist” going on a racist rampage.

In fact, the fact that it the usual suspects aren’t gleefully dancing in the blood of the victims right now is a clear cut indicator that they already know this story doesn’t advance the narrative, so it will be ignored.

Share

Responding to a comment on the last post

In response to my last “It’s a feature – not a bug” post, Robert said:

Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have gotten a lot of grief from the black community over their use of the words “super predators” which is a law enforcement concept dating to the Clinton administration, and refers to a small number of offenders who commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes and property crimes, and that, by locking them up, the overall crime rate is affected in an equally disproportionate manner. Blacks purposely misconstrue “super predators” to refer to black offenders only and use it as a bludgeon to deter politicians from writing laws that put more black men behind bars, deserving or no.

I started this as a reply on that post, but it quickly became a full-blown rant and post-worthy on it’s own so I decided to move it to the main page.

Yes, that was before the democrat party went full leftist and still had some centrist positions.

Of course Bill and Hillary were and are purely political animals, they would have taken any position they needed to in order to get elected, but at the time, crime rates were high and society was getting pretty sick of it, so they took the “tough on crime” tack.

It’s almost funny because part of the reason they even came up with the term “Super Predators” was an attempt to downplay the fact that the crime rate among blacks is significantly higher than any other demographic group in the US. They were basically saying “yes, it’s true that blacks commit a disproportionate number of the crimes in this country, but it’s not ALL blacks, it’s just a few of these ‘super predators’ that commit most of the crimes and give the black community a bad name.”

At the time, that was a popular sentiment even amongst blacks. But in this day and age where everything you say is taken out of context and applied in ways it was never intended to be so, it’s a major scandal that they would have said such terrible things.

Of course, that’s part of the leftist’s game plan as well and it’s still all about engendering fear in the populace. That’s pretty much what it all boils down to: generating fear. They claim to want “diversity” but what they really want is everyone concentrating on things like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc to the point where society is stratified along those lines. They’ve pretty much succeeded in that stratification and now they’re pitting those groups against each other. Women against men, blacks against whites, hispanics against blacks, blacks against asians, everyone against jews, straights against gays, transgenders against lesbians, etc etc etc etc….it never ends. They foment hatred amongst the groups and hatred breeds fear.

Look at what’s going on with the Asian attacks. It’s leftists and blacks that are attacking Asians…look where those attacks are happening: not in Mayberry. But the leftist media is blaming “white supremacists” even though they’ve had nothing to do with it. Stoking anger, fomenting hatred, engendering fear. That’s what they do because that’s how they seize and maintain power.

And then, ironically, they project all those tactics and traits onto the right.

Share

As I’ve said many times before…

It’s a feature, not a bug:

While anti-gun politicians are clamoring for new gun control legislation, a case out of New York City is proving to be the latest example of lack of enforcement when it comes to laws that are already on the books. 19-year old Raquan Wilson was back in court on Monday on yet another gun-related charge after police discovered a loaded handgun in a bag on the floor of an Uber where Wilson was a passenger.

As the New York Post reports, Wilson already has five open gun-related cases against him, including an armed robbery charge, but none of those cases resulted in Wilson heading to jail.

The left rules by fear. You cannot convince a secure, safe, prosperous people to voluntarily surrender their liberty. Therefore, you must create fear. There are examples of how this is done, global warming alarmism, abject terror of a virus with a 98+ percent survivability rate, elevating isolated incidents of police misconduct (and even, in some case, perfectly acceptable conduct) into a national crisis.

This is just one more in the same vein: Keep violent criminals out in society where they can create mayhem and fear, while at the same time working to restrict the ability of the law abiding to defend against them.

I’m starting a new category for this type of post.

Share

Modern “Justice”

It’s not a criminal act to vandalize a person’s vehicle and attack them with thrown objects, but it is a criminal act to defend oneself against such an attack.

I want to point out that the guy didn’t pull his gun in response to his vehicle being vandalized, he pulled his gun when the attackers started pelting him with whatever it was they were throwing. Also, he was severely outnumbered. Disparity of force is a factor in the “reasonableness” of the decision to use deadly force.

Some would say he shouldn’t have been there with his flags, that he provoked the response.

My response is, since when does only one side get to express their first amendment rights? The Antifa thugs are a tiny, tiny minority in our society, the fact that we allow them to commandeer the entire conversation because we are too afraid to meet them face to face is why we are losing the culture war. We don’t fight. We sit in the comfort of our homes and shake our heads over it, and when a few brave souls do show up, we vilify them for being so stupid as to stand up for what they believe.

And many cheer the Police arresting them for trying to defend themselves against the mob.

That’s why I find it hard to believe that a “civil war” is brewing as many on the right keep predicting. We as a culture no longer have the will to stand up and fight for our freedom and liberty. The other side definitely has the will to fight for their power to oppress us, but we don’t have the will to resist. There will be a few pockets of resistance, but they will be ruthlessly wiped out and the rest will meekly surrender. By the time things get bad enough for a large enough number of the population to be willing to fight back, it will be way too late and the jackboots will be firmly on the neck of the nation.

As I’ve said many times before, I just hope it takes long enough that I’m dead and buried before this slow motion train wreck comes to rest.

Share

It’s not about crime

Another entry in defining the left.

Democrats this week:
– Voted FOR stripping gun rights from law-abiding citizens
– Voted AGAINST requiring ICE to be notified if an illegal immigrant tries to buy a gun

As I’ve mentioned before, they constantly do things that don’t seem to make sense, but make perfect sense when you understand their goal is to destabilize society, engender fear and force the general public into dependency.

Their gun law proposals aren’t about reducing crime. They CLAIM that gun control is about reducing crime, but that’s a lie. If they were really about reducing crime would they also support releasing convicted criminals early? Reduced or eliminated bail? Wouldn’t they be more up in arms about the 40% reduction in prosecution for violation of existing gun laws that happened under Obama?

No, gun laws are not a method of reducing crime…criminals ignore those laws and are not punished for it…they are a method of controlling the law abiding. Of preventing law abiding citizens from the ability to defend themselves and their families both against criminals and against a criminal government.

Why? Because citizens who are secure, capable and equipped to defend themselves are self-reliant and confident. They don’t need the government to take care of them. They aren’t dependent. The left NEEDS people to be dependent on the government; that’s how they exercise control. So, make them insecure and dependent: take away their ability to defend themselves. Encourage violent criminals to continue terrorizing their communities. Keep the criminals out of jail and on the streets where they can do the most harm. Prevent the deportation of illegal aliens who are gang members and criminals.

There are symptoms of this in other areas of life as well, but the place that I think it’s the most stark is their blatant and seemingly contradictory stances regarding lenient treatment of criminals while simultaneously eliminating the right of citizens to defend themselves against those criminals.

As I said, it only seems contradictory when you don’t understand what the left is about.

Gun control is not about crime. It’s not even about guns. It’s about control.

Share